AI Prompts for Claude for Research

I want to research [BROAD TOPIC]. Help me narrow this into a specific, answerable research question. Ask me three clarifying questions to understand my audience, purpose, and constraints, then give me three refined question options with a brief explanation of what each one would require to answer well.

My research question is: [RESEARCH QUESTION]. I have [TIMEFRAME] and access to [AVAILABLE RESOURCES]. Create a structured research plan that identifies the most important sub-questions I need to answer, suggests the best source types for each (academic papers, industry reports, interviews, data sets), and sequences the work so I build understanding in a logical order.

Here is what I already know about [TOPIC]: [PASTE WHAT YOU KNOW]. Identify the key gaps in this understanding that my research should fill. Which assumptions am I making that I should test? What is the most contested claim in this area that I should examine carefully?

I am researching [TOPIC] for [PURPOSE — ACADEMIC PAPER / BUSINESS REPORT / JOURNALISM / PERSONAL DECISION]. Create a source evaluation checklist tailored to this context. What specific credibility signals should I look for? What red flags indicate a source is unreliable or outdated? How should I weight primary versus secondary sources for this specific topic?

I am starting research on [TOPIC]. Help me map the intellectual landscape: What are the main schools of thought or competing frameworks? Who are the key researchers or institutions producing work in this area? What are the landmark papers or reports I should read first to understand the conversation before diving into recent work?

Here is a passage from a source I am reading: [PASTE TEXT]. Extract the three to five most important claims the author is making. For each claim, note: what evidence they provide to support it, any important caveats or limitations they acknowledge, and how confident the claim appears to be (is it a finding, a hypothesis, or an opinion?).

Here is a summary of a study or argument I am evaluating: [PASTE SUMMARY]. Play the role of a rigorous peer reviewer. What are the three strongest critiques of this work? Consider: methodological limitations, unstated assumptions, scope of generalizability, potential confounding factors, and gaps between the data and the conclusions drawn.

I have two sources that seem to contradict each other on [SPECIFIC POINT]. Source A says: [PASTE CLAIM A]. Source B says: [PASTE CLAIM B]. Help me understand this conflict. Are they actually disagreeing, or using different definitions or measuring different things? What would need to be true for each to be correct? How should I handle this tension in my own writing?

Here is a passage I want to use in my research: [PASTE PASSAGE]. Write a detailed annotation that includes: the main argument of the passage in one sentence, the evidence or reasoning used to support it, any direct quotes I should consider using (with exact text), which part of my argument this supports, and a note on any limitations I should disclose when citing it.

I have gathered the following sources on the question of [SPECIFIC QUESTION]: [PASTE BRIEF SUMMARIES OR KEY CLAIMS FROM EACH SOURCE]. Synthesize these into a coherent picture. Where do sources agree? Where do they conflict? What is the weight of evidence pointing toward? What important nuances or qualifications does the combined evidence suggest I should include in my argument?

I have been researching [TOPIC] and here are my main findings so far: [PASTE FINDINGS]. Help me develop a specific, arguable thesis statement. The thesis should not just describe what I found — it should make a claim that needs evidence to support it and that a reasonable person could disagree with. Give me three thesis options at different levels of specificity.

My thesis is: [THESIS STATEMENT]. My main pieces of evidence are: [LIST KEY EVIDENCE]. Build a logical argument outline that arranges this evidence in the most persuasive order. Each main section should make a sub-claim that contributes to the overall thesis. Flag any gaps in my evidence where I need more research.

Here is my main argument: [PASTE ARGUMENT SUMMARY]. Steelman the strongest possible objection to this argument — not a weak attack but the most credible counterargument a knowledgeable critic would raise. Then help me either refute it with evidence, acknowledge it as a genuine limitation, or modify my argument to account for it.

I want to write a paragraph arguing that [SPECIFIC CLAIM]. Here is my evidence: [PASTE EVIDENCE/QUOTES]. Write a draft paragraph that integrates this evidence smoothly: introduces the claim, uses the evidence to support it (with proper attribution), and closes with a sentence that connects back to my overall thesis. Avoid starting with a direct quote.

My argument is that [THESIS]. But I have found evidence that complicates it: [PASTE CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE]. Help me handle this honestly. How should I acknowledge this evidence without undermining my overall argument? Should I revise my thesis, add a nuanced qualification, or explain why this evidence is less probative than what supports my claim?

I need to write a literature review on [TOPIC] for [AUDIENCE — ACADEMIC PAPER / BUSINESS REPORT / GENERAL AUDIENCE]. Here are the main sources I am drawing on and their key contributions: [LIST SOURCES AND MAIN POINTS]. Write a literature review that does not just summarize each source in sequence, but organizes the scholarship thematically and shows how the conversation has evolved. End with a sentence that identifies the gap my research fills.

Here is the full argument or findings from my research: [PASTE FULL SUMMARY OR KEY SECTIONS]. Write an executive summary (for a business audience) or abstract (for an academic audience) of [WORD COUNT]. It should state the research question, the method used, the key finding or argument, and the main implication. Do not use jargon without defining it.

Here is a section of my research writing that feels too dense or hard to follow: [PASTE SECTION]. Rewrite it for clarity without dumbing it down. Keep all the nuance but break complex sentences, define any implicit assumptions, and restructure so the main point of each paragraph is immediately clear from the first sentence.

My research has established the following: [PASTE MAIN FINDINGS AND ARGUMENT]. Write a conclusion that synthesizes what I have shown, explains the significance of these findings beyond the specific topic I studied, and points toward the most important implications or next steps. Avoid simply restating what I already said in the introduction.

Here is my full research argument: [PASTE FULL ARGUMENT OR OUTLINE]. Check it for logical consistency. Are there any claims I assert without evidence? Are there logical jumps where I need a connecting argument? Does my conclusion actually follow from my premises? Flag any gaps or weaknesses I should address before submitting.