AI Prompts for Claude for Long Documents

I am uploading a long document. Before I ask specific questions, please: (1) tell me the document type and apparent purpose, (2) identify the main sections or chapters, (3) note any unusual structure or formatting, (4) flag anything that seems incomplete or that I should know before relying on this document. Here is the document: [PASTE DOCUMENT].

Describe the structure of this document: the main sections, how they relate to each other, where the key arguments or data points appear, and which sections are most important for [MY PURPOSE]. Do not summarize the content yet, just describe the architecture of the document: [PASTE DOCUMENT].

I need to find information about [SPECIFIC TOPIC] in this document. Before reading the whole thing, tell me: which sections are most likely to contain what I need, which sections I can safely skip for this purpose, and any terms or headings I should search for: [PASTE DOCUMENT].

Read this document critically before I use it for [PURPOSE]. Flag: any internal inconsistencies, outdated information, unsupported claims, sections that are incomplete or unclear, and anything that makes this document less reliable for my use case: [PASTE DOCUMENT].

Read this document and identify the ten most important claims it makes. For each, note: where in the document it appears, what evidence or reasoning supports it, and how central it is to the document's overall argument or purpose: [PASTE DOCUMENT].

Read this document and extract every instance of [TYPE OF INFORMATION, e.g. financial figures / names and roles / dates and deadlines / action items / product specifications]. Organize them in a structured table with the context from the document: [PASTE DOCUMENT].

Based only on the information in this document, answer the following question: [YOUR QUESTION]. Quote the relevant passage directly, give me your interpretation of it, and flag if the document does not clearly answer the question: [PASTE DOCUMENT].

Read this document carefully and identify any contradictions: places where one section says something that conflicts with another section, where the data does not match the narrative, or where a claim made early is undermined later. For each contradiction, quote both passages and explain the conflict: [PASTE DOCUMENT].

Read this document and extract every obligation, commitment, deadline, or requirement it contains. Organize by party responsible (if applicable) and flag any that are ambiguous about who is responsible or what exactly is required: [PASTE CONTRACT, PROPOSAL, OR AGREEMENT].

Read this document and build a structured table with these columns: [SPECIFY YOUR COLUMNS, e.g. Topic / Key Finding / Evidence / Confidence Level / Source Section]. Each row should represent a distinct point or claim from the document: [PASTE DOCUMENT].

Read this document as a rigorous critic. Evaluate: the quality of the central argument, the strength of the evidence provided, the logical validity of the inferences drawn, any gaps in the reasoning, and the assumptions that most need to be verified. Give an overall assessment of how convincing the document is: [PASTE DOCUMENT].

I am uploading two documents: [DESCRIBE DOCUMENT 1] and [DESCRIBE DOCUMENT 2]. Compare them: where do they agree, where do they conflict, which is more recent or more authoritative for [PURPOSE], and what reading both together tells me that neither tells me alone: [PASTE BOTH DOCUMENTS].

Analyze the tone and sentiment of this document. Does the tone shift between sections? Which parts are most confident, most cautious, or most defensive? What does the tone tell me about the author's confidence in different parts of the argument: [PASTE DOCUMENT].

If I can only read 10% of this document, which section or pages are the most important for [MY PURPOSE]? Quote the single most important paragraph in the document and explain why it is the most essential. What can I safely skip if time is limited: [PASTE DOCUMENT].

I intend to use this document for [DESCRIBE USE, e.g. making an investment decision / citing in a proposal / briefing a client / training a team]. Assess how well suited this document is for that purpose: what it does well, what it lacks, what I should verify independently, and what additional documents I should read alongside it: [PASTE DOCUMENT].

Write three summaries of this document for different depths of engagement: (1) a one-sentence abstract, (2) a one-paragraph executive summary, (3) a one-page detailed summary with section headings. Each layer should stand alone and be accurate without the others: [PASTE DOCUMENT].

Summarize this document for a [DESCRIBE AUDIENCE, e.g. non-technical executive / subject-matter expert / general public / legal team]. Calibrate the vocabulary and the level of detail to what this audience needs. Emphasize the implications most relevant to them: [PASTE DOCUMENT].

Write a critical summary of this document: not just what it says but how well it supports its claims. For each major point, note the strength of the evidence and any significant caveats. This summary should be useful to someone who needs to decide how much weight to give this document: [PASTE DOCUMENT].

I have two versions of the same document: [DESCRIBE DOCUMENT]. Identify and summarize all meaningful changes between them. Distinguish between substantive changes (different content or conclusions) and editorial changes (rewording without changing meaning). Flag any changes that seem significant for [MY CONTEXT]: [PASTE BOTH VERSIONS].

Generate a Q&A document based on this [DOCUMENT TYPE]. Write the twenty most important questions a reader would have, with answers drawn directly from the document. Cover the main concepts, practical applications, and likely points of confusion. This Q&A should function as a standalone reference: [PASTE DOCUMENT].