💡 How to use these prompts:
Replace everything in [BRACKETS] with your specific details before sending.
Click Copy to copy any prompt to your clipboard instantly.
[CLAUDE OPUS 5 — 1M context, paste the full paper]
Read the following research paper in full before responding. After reading, extract:
1. The central claim or thesis (one sentence)
2. The 3 strongest pieces of evidence the authors provide
3. The 2 most significant limitations the authors acknowledge
4. The 2 most significant limitations the authors do NOT acknowledge but you can identify
5. How this paper changes (or does not change) the current consensus in this field
6. One follow-up question this paper raises that it does not answer
Do not summarise the abstract. Read the full paper before responding.
Paper: [PASTE FULL TEXT OR DOI AND ABSTRACT — up to 1M tokens]
[HIGH EFFORT — set Opus 5 to max for this task]
I am providing [NUMBER] research papers, articles, or sources below. Read all of them before writing anything. Then write a literature review of approximately [WORD COUNT] words covering the following research question: [YOUR RESEARCH QUESTION]
The review should:
- Group sources by theme or argument, not by source order
- Identify where sources agree and where they conflict
- Note any gaps in the existing literature
- Conclude with what the current evidence supports and what remains unresolved
Do not begin writing until you have read all sources.
Sources: [PASTE ALL SOURCES — use the 1M context window]
Research and write a competitive intelligence report on the following competitor. Use the information I provide below plus your training knowledge.
Competitor: [COMPANY OR PRODUCT NAME]
My context: [DESCRIBE YOUR COMPANY AND WHAT YOU COMPETE ON]
What I most need to know: [E.G. — their pricing model, their customer segments, their recent product changes, their weaknesses]
Structure the report as:
1. What they offer and to whom (their positioning)
2. Their pricing model and how it compares to ours
3. Their strongest competitive advantages against us
4. Their weakest points (where they lose deals)
5. Recent changes that signal where they are heading
6. Recommended response (one specific action we should take)
Sources I am providing: [PASTE ANY RESEARCH, REVIEWS, OR COMPETITOR CONTENT]
Extract all data matching the following specification from the document below. Output as a clean table — no prose, no explanation.
What to extract: [DESCRIBE THE DATA — e.g. company names, funding amounts, dates, performance metrics, prices]
Output format: markdown table with columns: [LIST COLUMN NAMES]
Rules:
- If a value is not present for a row, write "n/a" not a blank
- If a value is ambiguous, write the value followed by "(uncertain)"
- Do not infer or estimate — only extract what is explicitly stated
Document: [PASTE DOCUMENT]
Write a research memo on the following question. For each key claim, indicate your confidence level.
Research question: [YOUR QUESTION]
Audience: [WHO READS THIS — their expertise level]
Length: approximately [WORD COUNT]
Sources I am providing: [PASTE OR DESCRIBE]
Format each key claim as:
[CLAIM] — Confidence: High / Medium / Low
High = multiple independent sources agree
Medium = one strong source or consistent indirect evidence
Low = inference, analogy, or weak evidence
End with a section titled "Key Uncertainties" listing the 3 most important things we do not know.
I am going to give you an argument I want to make. Your job is to stress-test it — find the weakest points, the strongest counterarguments, and what evidence would be most damaging to it.
Argument: [STATE YOUR ARGUMENT AS CLEARLY AS POSSIBLE]
Context: [WHERE YOU WILL MAKE THIS ARGUMENT AND TO WHOM]
Give me:
1. The 3 strongest counterarguments someone could make against this
2. The single most damaging piece of evidence that could exist (even if you do not know whether it does)
3. The 2 hidden assumptions this argument depends on that you have not stated explicitly
4. A revised version of the argument that is harder to attack
Be direct. The goal is to find the weaknesses before my audience does.