ClaudePromptsResearch

8 min read10 prompts

10 Prompts to Make Your Claude Research Better

Get evidence-based answers instead of generic summaries.

With the right prompts, Claude can investigate claims, compare expert opinions, critique studies, and trace statistics back to their source.

Here are 10 research prompts to copy into Claude. They push for structured, evidence-based answers instead of generic summaries.

Who this is for

Students and researchersFounders and entrepreneursContent creatorsMarketersWriters and journalistsAnyone researching before a decisionAnyone who wants Claude to go deeper than a normal search

How to use these prompts

Pick a prompt

Choose the one that matches what you're trying to research.

Fill the brackets

Replace anything in [BRACKETS] with your own topic, claim, question, or goal.

Paste into Claude

Paste the full prompt using the Copy Prompt button. Turn on web search or Research so Claude can check live sources, and open every link it gives you to confirm it is real.

Add your material

Attach any documents, studies, reports, or links if they're relevant.

Keep asking

Ask follow-up questions when you want Claude to go deeper.

01 · Roadmap

Build a Research Roadmap

Best for: Planning a deep research project before you start.

Why use it: Gives Claude a clear order to investigate a big topic.

I’m researching [TOPIC] to achieve [GOAL]. My current knowledge level is [BEGINNER / INTERMEDIATE / ADVANCED]. Create a rigorous research roadmap. Break the topic into 5–7 key research questions, ordered from foundational to advanced. For each question, include: - Why it matters - What evidence would help answer it - Which sources I should prioritize - Important terms or concepts I need to understand - Common misconceptions, biases, or traps to watch for Identify any assumptions in my goal that should be tested rather than accepted. Finish with: - The recommended research sequence - The most important questions to answer first - A practical checklist I can follow

02 · Evidence

Find the Strongest Evidence

Best for: Checking whether a claim is actually supported by strong evidence.

Why use it: Pushes Claude past surface-level articles to compare the quality of the evidence.

Investigate this claim: [CLAIM]. Find the strongest available evidence both supporting and challenging it. Prioritize: - Primary sources - Systematic reviews - Meta-analyses - Peer-reviewed research - Official datasets - Reputable institutions Prioritize these over secondary articles or opinion pieces. For each major source, provide: - Author or organization - Publication date - Source or publication - Research method - Sample size, if relevant - Main finding - Major limitations - Direct source link Rate the evidence quality from 1–5 and briefly explain why. Clearly separate: - Well-established facts - Evidence-supported interpretations - Disputed claims - Weak or preliminary evidence - Unanswered questions Do not invent citations, statistics, or studies. If something cannot be verified, explicitly say so.

03 · Perspectives

Compare Expert Perspectives

Best for: Topics where different experts or industries have different opinions.

Why use it: Shows whether experts truly disagree or are just looking at the problem differently.

Compare how experts from [FIELD 1], [FIELD 2], and [FIELD 3] approach [TOPIC / QUESTION]. For each perspective, explain: - Core argument - Evidence used - Key assumptions - Research methods - Strengths - Weaknesses Put the major differences into a comparison table. Then determine: - Where experts genuinely disagree - Where they are using different definitions - Where they are using different datasets - Where different timeframes or priorities explain the disagreement Evaluate which conclusions currently have the strongest evidence without assuming that the majority view is automatically correct. Explain what new evidence could change the current conclusion. Include credible sources and direct links. Finish with a plain-language synthesis for a non-expert.

04 · Claims

Audit Any Claim

Best for: Fact-checking viral claims, headlines, videos, posts, or statistics.

Why use it: For when something sounds convincing and you want Claude to test it.

Act as a skeptical research reviewer and investigate this claim: "[CLAIM]" Break it into smaller testable statements. For each statement, classify it as: - Supported - Mostly supported - Partly supported - Misleading - Unsupported - Uncertain Examine: - Quality of the evidence - Age of the evidence - Relevance - Independence - Original source Specifically check for: - Cherry-picked statistics - Correlation presented as causation - Misleading comparisons - Missing context - Hidden assumptions - Small or unrepresentative samples - Conflicts of interest - Outdated evidence Create a table showing: - Statement - Verdict - Strongest supporting evidence - Strongest counterevidence - Confidence level Finish by rewriting the original claim in the most accurate version supported by the evidence.

05 · Conflicts

Investigate Conflicting Research

Best for: Topics where credible studies seem to reach different conclusions.

Why use it: Instead of picking one study, Claude explains why the research conflicts.

Investigate why credible studies reach different conclusions about [TOPIC]. Compare the most important studies based on: - Research question - Definitions used - Dataset - Sample size - Population - Time period - Methodology - Controls - Statistical approach - Funding or potential conflicts of interest Determine whether the disagreement is mainly caused by: - Methodological differences - Different populations - Limited data - Changing conditions - Publication bias - Measurement differences - Genuine scientific uncertainty Create a comparison table of the key studies. Then explain: 1. Which findings appear most reliable 2. Which conclusions should be treated cautiously 3. Why reasonable researchers might still disagree 4. What future research could help resolve the disagreement Only cite sources you can verify.

06 · Causation

Separate Correlation From Causation

Best for: Figuring out whether one thing actually causes another.

Why use it: Studies often show a link between two things without proving one caused the other.

Evaluate whether [FACTOR A] actually causes [OUTCOME B], or whether the relationship is only correlational. Investigate: - Plausible causal mechanisms - Confounding variables - Reverse causality - Selection effects - Measurement problems - Alternative explanations Compare evidence from: - Observational studies - Randomized experiments - Natural experiments - Longitudinal studies - Meta-analyses Explain what each type of evidence can and cannot establish. Consider whether Bradford Hill-style causal criteria or another causal framework is appropriate for this question. Finish with one conclusion: - Strong causal evidence - Moderate causal evidence - Weak causal evidence - Correlation only - Insufficient evidence Explain the reasoning. Also state what new evidence would most increase or decrease your confidence.

07 · Gaps

Discover Research Gaps

Best for: Finding unanswered questions, new study ideas, business opportunities, or underexplored areas.

Why use it: Gets specific gaps instead of a vague "more research is needed."

Map the current research on [TOPIC] and identify 7 meaningful research gaps. Avoid generic statements such as "more research is needed." For each gap, explain: - What researchers already know - What remains unknown - Why the gap matters - Which populations, situations, or variables are underrepresented - Why existing research has not resolved it - What data would be required Then propose: - One focused research question - One realistic study design - The main difficulty in conducting that research Rank all seven gaps by: - Potential impact - Feasibility - Urgency Support each gap with recent credible evidence showing that the uncertainty genuinely exists.

08 · Peer review

Critique a Study Like a Peer Reviewer

Best for: Reviewing a research paper, report, PDF, or study.

Why use it: Claude checks whether the study's methods and conclusions hold up.

Review the attached study, paper, or report as a rigorous but fair peer reviewer. Evaluate: - Research question - Existing literature - Sample selection - Measurement quality - Methodology - Statistical reasoning - Assumptions - Potential confounders - Limitations - Whether the conclusions are justified by the results Identify at least: - Three strengths - Three weaknesses Separate: - Potentially fatal flaws - Important limitations - Minor issues Check whether the authors make claims that go beyond what their data demonstrates. Suggest specific improvements. List the main questions the authors should answer. Reference the relevant sections of the paper when making criticisms. Finish with one verdict: - Reliable - Strong but limited - Promising but requires further evidence - Requires major revision - Unreliable

09 · Synthesis

Create an Evidence-Based Synthesis

Best for: Getting a balanced overview of a large or complicated topic.

Why use it: Claude weighs evidence by quality instead of treating every source equally.

Synthesize the best available evidence on [QUESTION] for [TARGET AUDIENCE]. Organize the analysis into: 1. Current consensus 2. Strongest supporting evidence 3. Strongest credible counterarguments 4. Areas of disagreement 5. Remaining uncertainty 6. Practical implications 7. Future research priorities Give greater weight to: - High-quality primary research - Systematic reviews - Meta-analyses - Authoritative datasets Do not treat every source as equally reliable. Create an evidence table showing: - Major conclusion - Supporting sources - Evidence quality - Main limitations - Confidence level Clearly distinguish between: - Conclusions directly supported by evidence - Reasonable interpretation - Your own inference End with five key takeaways written in simple language.

10 · Sources

Trace a Claim Back to Its Original Source

Best for: Checking where a statistic, quote, fact, or viral claim actually came from.

Why use it: A claim can spread across dozens of sites that all trace back to one weak source.

Trace this claim, statistic, quote, or idea back to its earliest reliable source: [CLAIM / STATISTIC / QUOTE] Investigate where it originally came from and how it spread. Find: - The earliest verifiable source - The original wording or finding - Who produced the information - The methodology or data behind it - The original context - Later articles, posts, or reports that repeated it Check whether the claim: - Changed over time - Lost important context - Became exaggerated - Was misrepresented as it spread Distinguish between: - Sources that independently verified the claim - Sources that simply repeated another source If the original source cannot be located, say so rather than guessing. Finish with: - Original claim - What the original source actually says - How the claim changed - Most accurate version - Confidence in the conclusion Include direct links to the original evidence whenever possible.

Wrap-up

You Don't Need Every Prompt

You do not need to use every prompt for every research task. Pick the one that matches what you are trying to figure out, customize the placeholders, and then keep asking follow-up questions.

Save this guide and come back whenever you need to research something properly with Claude.

Follow Harley Digital for more AI tools, prompts, and practical AI workflows.

← Back to all guides