Rent vs. own vs. house-hack: lay out the paths, promise nothing
Rung 4 of 10 · Recipe pattern
1 · Learn the move · Recipe pattern
A buyer weighing 'keep renting, buy a normal home, or house-hack a small multi' deserves the three paths side by side, not a pitch for the one with the exciting number. The recipe pattern runs a fixed, ordered procedure the AI follows the same way every time: lay the three paths on identical rows, set every monthly figure up as a formula you compute, show the 'live-for-free' gap as exactly that (a gap to close, never a promise), and crown no winner. The side-by-side table is just the last step's format; the discipline is the repeatable sequence, and that sequence is what makes this a recipe rather than a one-off comparison. The cardinal sin here is 'house-hack and live for free': it's a setup (PITI minus the other units' rent), usually positive, and it moves with vacancy and real leases. Set it up, hand off the math, crown no winner. Not investment advice.
Run a rent-vs-own-vs-house-hack recipe from ONLY my figures. Three columns, same rows, every monthly number set up as a formula tagged COMPUTE IN YOUR MODEL/verify. Show the 'live-for-free' gap as PITI minus other-unit rent, a gap to close, NOT a promise. Crown no winner, invent nothing, mark gaps UNKNOWN. Not investment advice.
2 · Your turn. You write the prompt
Your client pays $1,800/month to rent. They're weighing three paths: keep renting; buy a single-family home with a lender-quoted PITI of $2,600/month; or buy a duplex to owner-occupy (lender-quoted PITI $3,100/month) and rent the other unit at an estimated $1,500/month. Down payments, closing costs, maintenance, and vacancy aren't finalized. Write a prompt that lays the three paths out honestly and never promises 'live for free.'
Remember: the AI sees only your prompt, not this page. If the situation isn't in your prompt, it doesn't exist.
Optional. These shape the output when you run your prompt below, not your score.