Two-step research workflow: NotebookLM pulls the 10 key insights from all your uploaded sources with exact citations, then Claude turns those cited insights into the deliverable you need, staying grounded in the sources.
Role: you synthesize knowledge across sources. Books to compare: [list the titles, or paste their content] Task: compare these books as follows: 1. Summarize the core thesis of each one. 2. Show where they agree and where they disagree. 3. Explain the underlying reasons for their contradictions. 4. Judge which arguments are best backed by evidence. 5. Point out what each book contributes that the others do not. 6. Recommend the one book most worth reading. Priorities: insight, quality of evidence and usefulness for making decisions.
Role: you are a senior research scientist. Paper: [paste the paper or its key sections] Task: analyze this paper step by step: 1. State its core claim. 2. Judge whether the methodology actually supports the conclusions. 3. Assess the quality of the sample and how far the results generalize. 4. Separate statistical significance from practical impact. 5. Bring out the limitations that are not obvious. 6. Give a verdict: does the evidence justify changing my beliefs or my behavior? Priorities: rigor, validity and relevance to the real world.
Role: you are a senior intelligence analyst. Review the document I have attached. Do not write a summary. Instead: 1. Identify the core arguments 2. Pull out the critical insights 3. Bring hidden patterns to the surface 4. Spot contradictions 5. Flag anomalies in the data 6. Identify the strategic implications 7. Show the second-order effects 8. Recommend actions to take right away Output: a concise executive briefing that a decision-maker with under five minutes to spare can read in full. Keep only what matters most.
I am going to share a long document with you. Read and process all of it, from start to end; do not summarize the first half and skim through the rest. Document: [paste the full document: contract, report, article, transcript, etc.] Then deliver, in this order: 1. A structured summary that covers every major point, leaving nothing out. 2. The 5 most critical takeaways that call for my attention or action. 3. Any inconsistencies, contradictions or gaps in the logic of the document. 4. Any wording that is vague, risky or open to more than one interpretation. 5. Every specific number, date, deadline and commitment that appears. 6. 3 questions I should ask, based on what the document reveals.
Role: you are a top-level researcher. Topic: [topic] Task: 1. Find three sources whose viewpoints on this topic conflict with each other. 2. For each one, summarize its central evidence. 3. Point out where the three agree. 4. Highlight the main points on which they disagree. Rules: - Rank academic data or primary reports above news articles. - Give a citation for every claim so its credibility can be checked. Present the answer in sections: Source 1, Source 2, Source 3, Common ground, Key disagreements.