Transform vague research needs into actionable briefs
Turns a vague research need into one self-contained paragraph a zero-context researcher can act on without back-and-forth.
Why it matters
Convert ambiguous research questions into comprehensive, self-contained research prompts that enable researchers with zero prior context to deliver thorough, verifiable findings without back-and-forth clarification.
Outcomes
What it gets done
Extract project context and compress it into plain-English explainers for researchers unfamiliar with the work
Break down broad research goals into 3-6 numbered, specific sub-questions with clear completion criteria
Embed constraints, source hierarchies, and output formats that enforce primary-source verification and gap analysis
Generate single-paragraph prompts that specify decision logic, contradiction handling, and deliverable structure
Install
Add it to your toolbox
Run in your project directory:
curl -fsSL https://spark.entire.vc/get/ag-research-prompt | bash Overview
Research Prompt
Compresses a vague research need into one self-contained paragraph with a plain-English explainer, a single guiding question, 3-6 numbered sub-questions, source-hierarchy rules, and a defined completion bar. Use it when a research question needs to go to a researcher with zero prior context and must work without back-and-forth clarification.
What it does
Turns a vague research need into one self-contained paragraph that a researcher with zero prior knowledge of the project can act on with zero back-and-forth - a deep-research brief or researcher prompt.
When to use - and when NOT to
Use it when the user wants a deep-research brief or researcher prompt, or when a vague research question needs to become one precise self-contained paragraph. The deliverable must stay a single paragraph with no headers and no bullet list, prompting the job rather than just the topic - giving search handles like timeframe, ranking, source type, and decision logic, not just a subject.
Inputs and outputs
The process: pull context from the relevant project files or conversation (dates, names, known facts, audience, end use) and write a 1-2 sentence plain-English explainer of what the project is and why it exists, for a reader who knows nothing; identify the one question the research must answer; draft 3-6 numbered sub-questions that fully cover it; add include/avoid constraints plus the required per-finding output format; then compress everything to one clean paragraph, cutting filler. The resulting paragraph must: open with that plain-English explainer of the project, why it exists, and the current situation; lead immediately with the single question the research answers and the decision or use it informs; embed all context (names, dates, product, prior known facts, constraints) so the researcher never needs to ask or guess anything; number the sub-questions inline, capped at 3-6, one mission per prompt; state explicit constraints on what to include and avoid; demand a fixed output per finding of a source link, the specific claim, and a one-line note on why it matters; require verifiable, citable facts only, no opinions; and close with an instruction to output everything into a single detailed markdown file.
Integrations
Source handling rules: prefer primary sources (official docs, GitHub, papers, filings, changelogs), treating forums, X, and Reddit as weak signal only, never factual proof; when sources conflict, separate confirmed facts from inference from unresolved uncertainty rather than forcing a fake consensus, and flag low-confidence claims for verification. The completion bar is defined explicitly: don't stop at the first plausible answer - corroborate each key claim with multiple independent primary sources where they exist, and say so explicitly where sources are scarce instead of padding, continuing until every numbered sub-question is covered to that bar. A mandatory gap round runs before finishing: a self-critique pass listing gaps, contradictions, and any single-source claims, followed by another round of searches to close them, repeated until clean. The deliverable itself is constrained hard while the search method stays loose, so the researcher can explore freely. To actually run the finished prompt with an AI researcher, execute it via DeepAPI's POST /v1/research/deep endpoint, following the separate deep-research skill.
Who it's for
Anyone who needs to hand a research question to an AI or human researcher who has zero context on the project, and wants that researcher to work from one precise, self-contained brief instead of a vague topic that invites back-and-forth clarification.
Source README
Research Prompt
When to Use
- Use when the user wants a deep-research brief or researcher prompt.
- Use when a vague research question needs to become one precise self-contained paragraph.
Goal: turn a vague research need into ONE self-contained paragraph that a researcher with zero prior knowledge of the project can act on with zero back-and-forth.
Rules
- One paragraph. No headers, no bullet list in the deliverable.
- Prompt the job, not the topic. Give search handles (timeframe, ranking, source type, decision logic) - not just a subject.
- Assume zero prior knowledge. Write for a researcher who has never heard of the project. Open by explaining, in plain English, what the project/product is, why it exists, and the current situation - so they understand what's going on, what we need, and why we need it.
- Lead with the goal + decision. Right after that explainer, state the single question the research must answer and the decision/use it informs.
- Embed all context. Names, dates, product, prior known facts, constraints. The researcher must not need to ask anything or guess.
- Number the sub-questions inline (1, 2, 3…) so coverage is explicit. Keep to 3-6. One mission per prompt - don't cram unrelated questions.
- State constraints. What to include, what to avoid (e.g. "only non-Chinese competitors", "no marketing fluff").
- Source hierarchy. Prefer primary sources (official docs, GitHub, papers, filings, changelogs); forums/X/Reddit are weak signal only, never factual proof.
- Contradiction handling. If sources conflict, separate confirmed facts / inference / unresolved uncertainty - don't force fake consensus. Flag low-confidence claims for verification.
- Completion bar (define "done"). Don't stop at the first plausible answer. Corroborate each key claim with multiple independent primary sources where they exist; where sources are scarce, say so explicitly instead of padding. Keep going until every numbered sub-question is covered to this bar.
- Gap round before finishing. Require a final self-critique pass: list gaps, contradictions, and any single-source claims, then run another round of searches to close them - repeat until clean.
- Constrain output hard, method loosely. Be strict on the deliverable; leave the search path flexible so the researcher can explore.
- Demand a fixed output per finding: source link + specific claim + one-line "why it matters / why a viewer should care".
- Verifiable, citable facts only. No opinions.
- Last sentence: instruct them to output everything into a single detailed markdown file.
Process
- Pull context from the relevant project files / conversation (dates, names, known facts, audience, end use), and write a 1-2 sentence plain-English explainer of what the project is and why it exists for a reader who knows nothing.
- Identify the ONE question the research answers.
- Draft 3-6 numbered sub-questions that fully cover it.
- Add include/avoid constraints + the per-finding output format.
- Compress to one clean paragraph. Cut filler.
Template
[For a reader with zero prior knowledge: in 1-2 plain-English sentences, what the project/product is, why it exists, and the current situation.] Research [TOPIC + key identifying facts] to answer one question: [THE QUESTION] - for [DECISION / END USE]. Find: (1) …; (2) …; (3) …; (4) …. [Constraints: include X, avoid Y.] Prefer primary sources; treat forums/social as weak signal only; if sources conflict, separate fact from inference and flag what needs verification. Don't stop at the first plausible answer: corroborate each key claim with multiple independent primary sources where they exist (and say so explicitly where they don't), continuing until every numbered question is covered to that bar. Before finishing, do a self-critique pass - list gaps, contradictions, and any single-source claims, then run another round of searches to close them, repeating until clean. For each point, give the source link, the specific claim, and a one-line "why it matters". No marketing fluff - verifiable, citable facts only. Output everything into a single detailed markdown file.
Executing the prompt
To run the finished prompt with an AI researcher, execute it via DeepAPI POST /v1/research/deep - follow the deep-research skill.
Limitations
- Adapted from
davidondrej/skills; verify local paths, tools, credentials, and agent features before acting. - For commands, remote access, scheduling, browser automation, or file-changing workflows, get explicit user approval and confirm the target environment first.
Discussion
Questions & comments · 0
Sign In Sign in to leave a comment.