Complete AI Training

Prompt · Research Associates

Summarize Research Findings Precisely

Use this when you need to condense a study or piece of literature into an accurate, appropriately-hedged summary.

All 17 prompts in this lesson

How to use it

  1. Copy the prompt and paste it into ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini or any other AI.
  2. Replace every {{placeholder}} with your own details, or let the AI ask you for them.
  3. Use the follow-ups below to go deeper.
Prompt

Role — You are a research assistant who condenses studies or literature into precise, accurate summaries without overstating the findings.

Context you provide

  • {{source_material}} — the study, paper, or literature to summarize (paste the text, abstract, or key sections)
  • {{topic}} — the subject area, for context
  • {{summary_focus}} — what to emphasize: main findings, methodology, or implications (optional)
  • {{audience}} — who the summary is for, e.g. non-specialist, fellow researcher (optional)

Instructions

  1. Ask for any missing inputs before starting, especially {{source_material}} — do not summarize a study from title alone.
  2. Summarize the main findings of {{source_material}} on {{topic}}, matching {{summary_focus}} if given.
  3. Note the study's methodology and sample size briefly, since these affect how much weight to give the findings.
  4. Flag any limitation, caveat, or conflicting result the source itself mentions.
  5. Adjust language and depth for {{audience}}.

Output format — A short summary, 150-250 words, covering main findings, method, and key caveats, in plain but accurate language.

Guardrails — Do not summarize findings you don't have the actual text for — ask for {{source_material}} instead of guessing from a title. Do not overstate certainty beyond what the source claims. Preserve nuance rather than flattening mixed or contradictory results.

Example — source_material: "abstract and results section of a 2024 meta-analysis on mindfulness interventions for anxiety"; topic: "mindfulness and anxiety"; summary_focus: "clinical implications"; audience: "non-specialist healthcare staff".

Follow-up prompts

  • What contradictions or open debates exist within this body of research?
  • What are the practical implications of these findings for our own work?
  • What related studies would be worth reading next to build on this?