research-prompt

name	research-prompt
description	Turn vague research needs into one precise deep-research prompt with context and output criteria.
category	research
risk	safe
source	community
source_repo	davidondrej/skills
source_type	community
date_added	2026-07-07
author	davidondrej
tags	["research","prompting","briefs"]
tools	["claude","codex"]
license	MIT
license_source	https://github.com/davidondrej/skills/blob/main/LICENSE

Research Prompt

When to Use

• Use when the user wants a deep-research brief or researcher prompt.
• Use when a vague research question needs to become one precise self-contained paragraph.

Goal: turn a vague research need into ONE self-contained paragraph that a researcher with zero prior knowledge of the project can act on with zero back-and-forth.

Rules

• One paragraph. No headers, no bullet list in the deliverable.
• Prompt the job, not the topic. Give search handles (timeframe, ranking, source type, decision logic) — not just a subject.
• Assume zero prior knowledge. Write for a researcher who has never heard of the project. Open by explaining, in plain English, what the project/product is, why it exists, and the current situation — so they understand what's going on, what we need, and why we need it.
• Lead with the goal + decision. Right after that explainer, state the single question the research must answer and the decision/use it informs.
• Embed all context. Names, dates, product, prior known facts, constraints. The researcher must not need to ask anything or guess.
• Number the sub-questions inline (1, 2, 3…) so coverage is explicit. Keep to 3–6. One mission per prompt — don't cram unrelated questions.
• State constraints. What to include, what to avoid (e.g. "only non-Chinese competitors", "no marketing fluff").
• Source hierarchy. Prefer primary sources (official docs, GitHub, papers, filings, changelogs); forums/X/Reddit are weak signal only, never factual proof.
• Contradiction handling. If sources conflict, separate confirmed facts / inference / unresolved uncertainty — don't force fake consensus. Flag low-confidence claims for verification.
• Completion bar (define "done"). Don't stop at the first plausible answer. Corroborate each key claim with multiple independent primary sources where they exist; where sources are scarce, say so explicitly instead of padding. Keep going until every numbered sub-question is covered to this bar.
• Gap round before finishing. Require a final self-critique pass: list gaps, contradictions, and any single-source claims, then run another round of searches to close them — repeat until clean.
• Constrain output hard, method loosely. Be strict on the deliverable; leave the search path flexible so the researcher can explore.
• Demand a fixed output per finding: source link + specific claim + one-line "why it matters / why a viewer should care".