🧠 PromptForge Pro — one free month of Pro, and every prompt scored before you send it

Give-Away and Freebies
, ,

AI-generated summary

:bullseye: What you get: One free month of PromptForge Pro, a tool that writes, scores, and refines prompts.

:white_check_mark: Start here:

  • PromptForge Pro — build, refine, and score prompts before running them.
  • Promo code ONEHACK100 — gives the first month of Pro free at checkout (first 50 users).
  • Optimise tool — paste an existing prompt to receive a clarity score and a rewritten version.

:toolbox: Also useful:

  • Detailed Builder — guides prompts by setting goals, target audience, and output formats.
  • Prompt Library & Brand Kit — saves reusable prompts, context profiles, and version histories.

:warning: Watch out:

  • Subscriptions renew automatically at €9/month after the first month unless canceled.
1

1280×800 103 KB

:brain: PromptForge Pro — turn a rough idea into a scored, reusable prompt

Write it, score it, fix it, save it — one workspace for ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and anything else that takes a prompt.

1Hack code ONEHACK100 · Site → promptforgepro.me · Free plan → no card needed
Disclosure: I’m Nuno, the developer of PromptForge Pro. This is my own product.

Do this Get this
Open promptforgepro.me/signup and create a free account Free plan, no card needed
Choose Pro, type ONEHACK100 at checkout (handled by Paddle) First month €0 instead of €9
Paste a prompt you already use into Optimise A score plus a stronger version

50 redemptions · valid until 28 Nov 2026 (Lisbon time) · tax shown by Paddle at checkout

🛠️ What it does
Area What you get
Create: Quick One idea in, one ready-to-use prompt out (voice input works too)
Create: Detailed Step-by-step builder: goal, audience, tone and format
Create: Optimise Paste a prompt you already have and get a score plus improved versions
Library Save your prompts, then run, optimise, test and version them
Run Generate the final text inside the app, ready to copy
Brand Kit Save your tone, audience and product once; prompts use them automatically
Packs 14 expert packs (marketing, real estate, small business, freelancers, hospitality…) in English and Portuguese
Learn 18 short, practical lessons on writing better prompts
🆓 Free vs Pro · coupon terms · notes
Free (€0) Pro (€9/month)
Quick, Detailed and Optimise :white_check_mark: (3 optimisations per prompt) :white_check_mark: unlimited optimisations
Prompt library :white_check_mark: :white_check_mark: + version history
Run prompts in-app 5 runs/day 100 runs/day
Brand Kit profiles 1 3
A/B prompt testing, detailed scoring, export — :white_check_mark:
Learn lessons 4 of 18 all 18
Packs previews previews (full packs are a separate one-time Premium purchase, not part of this offer)

Coupon terms

Term Detail
Discount 100% off the first month of Pro monthly
After that €9/month, renews monthly until you cancel
Cancel Anytime from your account, no questions asked
Uses First 50 redemptions
Valid until 28 Nov 2026 (Lisbon time, WET)
Not included Premium packs (one-time purchase), other plans
Taxes Shown at checkout by Paddle and depend on your country

Notes

  • The Free plan stays free, with no card required. Try it first and only upgrade if it is useful to you.
  • The interface is available in English and Portuguese.
  • Feedback and bug reports are welcome in this thread, I read every reply.
إعجابَين (2)
2

The scoring idea is what caught my attention, because a prompt usually fails quietly rather than obviously, and seeing a score before sending it gives a clear place to start fixing it. I would test the Optimise flow first on a prompt I already reuse, since an improved version plus a score is more useful than a blank builder when I know roughly what I want. The Detailed builder also looks practical for work prompts, because stating the goal, audience, tone and format up front should reduce the usual back-and-forth revisions. For repeated tasks, the Library with version history and the Brand Kit seem like the real time savers, as they stop me from retyping the same context for every new request. My main question is how the detailed scoring and A/B testing judge a better result, because a higher score is only helpful if it reflects clearer instructions and a more useful output rather than just longer wording.

إعجابَين (2)
5

Thanks, Grace, that’s exactly the right question.

The score isn’t based on length: it checks whether the prompt states a clear goal, audience, context, constraints and output format, and flags what’s missing or ambiguous. A longer prompt with vague instructions scores lower than a short, precise one. A/B testing goes a step further: it runs both versions and puts the actual outputs side by side, so you judge the result, not just the prompt. Starting with Optimise on a prompt you already reuse is a great way to test it. Would love to hear how it scores.

6

Thanks for explaining that, it clears up my main doubt about the score. Checking goal, audience, context, constraints, and output format makes the result feel much more useful than a simple length check. The part I would test first is the missing-or-ambiguous flag, since vague wording is usually what quietly breaks a prompt. I would also compare the score before and after an edit, so I can see whether the fix actually helped. That before-and-after check would tell me quickly whether the tool is guiding the prompt or just grading it.