AI Prompt Builder for Housers
Ask AI for housing work without handing it something you shouldn’t.
Pick what you do and what you need to write. You get a short prompt built for the task, with the line that keeps the model from inventing a citation already at the bottom of it. No account, no cost, no catch.
Everything here happens in your browser. This page has no server behind it — what you type never leaves your machine, so there is nothing for us to store and nothing for your IT director to worry about.
What do you do?
This sets the vocabulary and narrows the list.
The lines we won’t help you cross
Some of this belongs nowhere near an AI tool.
These are the requests we get asked for most and build prompts for least. Each one says why, and what you can do instead.
Anything involving EIV data
Summarize an EIV report, explain an income discrepancy, draft from EIV output.
EIV information — and any eligibility or income information obtained to administer the program — cannot be disclosed to a third party for any reason without written tenant authorization. An AI tool is a third party. This one has no exception to work around: the penalty reaches individual and agency-wide EIV access termination, and SSA can cut off the data feed entirely.
Instead: You can write the desk guide for how your staff handle discrepancies — the process, with no case data in it.
Quoted rule: Notice PIH 2018-18 §18/§20; Form HUD-52676 Rules of Behavior; HUD–SSA Computer Matching Agreement §XI–XII.
A specific person’s VAWA situation
A self-certification, a transfer request, anything naming victim status.
VAWA-protected information shall not be entered into any shared database or disclosed to any other entity or individual. The consent exception has to be written and time-limited for that specific disclosure, which no ongoing AI workflow can satisfy. Writing your agency’s VAWA policy or emergency transfer plan is a different thing and is fine — this bar is on individual case information.
Instead: The policy or the emergency transfer plan itself, with no individual facts, is green-tier work.
Quoted rule: 24 CFR 5.2007(c); 34 U.S.C. §12491.
Deciding screening, eligibility, or a termination
Should we deny this applicant? Does this rise to termination?
Our recommended policy is that AI never makes or recommends an individual adverse decision. Your individualized-assessment duties under Section 504, the ADA and the Fair Housing Act stay intact and stay yours. Voucher-holder algorithmic screening is the most litigated fact pattern in this space — Louis v. SafeRent settled for $2.275M with injunctive relief, and it is the liability theory, not that injunction, that generalizes.
Instead: You can frame the question to take to counsel or to your supervisor — that is a real use, and it is on the list.
Our recommended policy, not a codified prohibition: SafeRent litigation record (Louis v. SafeRent, D. Mass.); the principle behind 24 CFR 5.236(b)’s bar on adverse action based solely on EIV data.
Deciding a reasonable accommodation request
Is this request reasonable? Should we grant or deny it?
Same recommended policy: the individualized assessment is a duty you hold, and an accommodation decision is exactly the kind of individual adverse decision to keep out of an AI tool. Drafting your standard RA response template — no individual facts in it — is green-tier and on the list.
Instead: Draft the template letter with placeholders, then fill in the specifics yourself offline.
Our recommended policy, not a codified prohibition: individualized assessment duties under Section 504 / ADA / FHA; SafeRent litigation record.
Working from a specific tenant’s file
Paste in a 50058, an income packet, or a case file and ask for a summary.
Tenant PII — 50058/50059 data, files, income documents — carries the same Privacy Act handling rules through HUD’s own security manual. It is not a flat never, but it needs enterprise terms with no-training and no-retention, plus a legal determination of the vendor’s role, before it goes anywhere near an AI tool. That is an agency-level decision, not one to make at your desk on a Tuesday.
Instead: Strip the identifiers and the same summary usually still works — the builder will help you swap them for placeholders.
Our recommended policy, not a codified prohibition: EIV Multifamily Security Administration Manual; Notice PIH 2018-18 §18.
We mark which of these is a rule quoted from a primary source and which is our own professional judgment, because the difference matters to the attorney who reads your policy. The detector on this page is deliberately conservative — it catches the common shapes of a name, an address, a case number. It will not catch everything, and it was never meant to replace you reading your own text before you paste it.
This builder enforces one rule set. Ours.
Your agency needs its own — written for your board, your data, and the tools you have actually approved. That is the work we do: readiness assessments, a board-ready AI policy, and role-based training where staff leave having done the work rather than watched it.
AI Housers is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by HUD, the IRS, or any state housing finance agency. This page is educational and is not legal advice. Anything an AI tool drafts for you is a draft — label it as AI-generated, never as HUD guidance, and verify it against the current source and your agency’s own plan before it goes anywhere. See our privacy notice.