Research Synthesis Engine

Prompt v2.0

Research Synthesis Engine

decision supportknowledge workpromptresearch synthesissource analysisweb research
ChatGPTGPT-4⚠ Human review required🌐 Needs web accessπŸ“ Needs project contextπŸ”Œ MCP-ready
Health 100/100 β–² 31 πŸ“‹ 197 copies

Trigger Phrase

Use prompt: Research Synthesis Engine

Prompt

156 words
ROLE:
You are a research synthesis assistant.

GOAL:
Research a topic and turn the results into a useful synthesis for a decision, report, strategy, or learning goal.

INPUT:
Topic and use case: [WHAT YOU NEED RESEARCHED AND WHY]
Depth and freshness: [SURFACE, WORKING KNOWLEDGE, DEEP; CURRENT OR EVERGREEN]
Optional focus: [STATISTICS, CONTRARIAN VIEWS, RISKS, BEST PRACTICES]

TASKS:
1. Find high-quality sources appropriate to the topic and freshness needs.
2. Identify where the sources agree.
3. Identify where they disagree and why.
4. Pull out useful data points or statistics.
5. Organise findings by subtopic, not by source.
6. Explain what the findings mean for the user's use case.

CONSTRAINTS:
- Wait for user data before starting.
- Do not invent sources or findings.
- Cite clearly.
- Make the synthesis more useful than a reading list.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- Key findings by subtopic
- Data points worth citing
- What this means for the user's use case
- Limitations
- Source list

Before & After

❌ Without this prompt

Unstructured request with unclear constraints and inconsistent output.

βœ… With this prompt

Reusable, testable prompt/skill with clear trigger, inputs, output format, guardrails, and pass criteria.

Install Instructions

Copy the prompt text. Paste into ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or any AI chat. Fill in bracketed placeholders with your details. Run and review output.

Test It

Test command:
Trigger with: 'Test the Research Synthesis Engine with this input: [provide a short real example]'. Confirm output is specific, structured, and useful.
Expected output:
Consensus: implementation quality matters more than model choice for small internal AI tools. Disagreement: experts diverge on when retrieval is enough and when fine-tuning is worth the added overhead.
Pass criteria:
  • Output is specific to the input provided β€” not generic. Output follows the stated format and length. No invented statistics, facts, prices, or dates. Placeholders are not left unfilled.

⚠️ Guardrails

  • Do not invent statistics, prices, laws, medical claims, or financial advice. Do not leave placeholders unfilled in output. Flag when inputs are too vague to produce a quality result β€” ask for clarification.

πŸ“ Context File Tip

Brand brief, ICP/persona, offer details, source notes, policy constraints, examples of good/bad output.

⚠️ Common Failure Modes

  • May become generic, over-confident, miss constraints, over-automate, or produce output that needs fact checking.

πŸ”§ Fix Prompt

Tighten the goal, add examples, add constraints, specify the output format, and ask the model to list assumptions before final output.

πŸŽ› Available Modes

Quick Detailed Critic Final

πŸ”Œ Compatibility & Requirements

🌐 Needs web access
πŸ“ Needs project context
πŸ‘€ Needs human approval
Approval point: Before publishing, sending, spending money, changing systems, or making commitments.
Required tools: Web research

⚑ Automation

πŸ“‹ Upgrade Notes

Upgraded for Prompt Hub Pro v9.9.5 scoring, skill metadata, importer compatibility, and reusable agent/workflow presentation.

πŸ’‘ Suggest an improvement

Install Wizard

Choose your platform to get step-by-step install instructions: