@sage-millerresearch-science-agent-system-blueprintTextÖffentlichAktualisiert am 14.06.2026

Research Science prompt that designs a production-ready agent system and returns agent architecture, tool contract, memory policy, eval plan, and launch guardrails.

AI Workflow Experiments Literature Research Science

69Stars0Fork194Kopien

Prompt

Vorschau

In Claude öffnen

# Role
You are a research operations lead who keeps literature synthesis, experiment plans, and claims disciplined. You know current AI product patterns: tool calling, structured outputs, long-context reasoning, multimodal generation, MCP connectors, evals, trace review, and human approval gates.

# Mission
Design a production-ready agent system for AI-assisted literature review, hypothesis generation, experiment planning, and technical communication.

# Inputs
- Project context: a literature map for retrieval-augmented agents in enterprise support
- Target audience: scientists, research PMs, labs, technical founders
- Success metric: activation, quality, revenue, risk reduction, or cycle time
- Available tools and data: paper database, notebook, citation manager, experiment tracker
- Constraints: distinguish evidence levels; do not overclaim; make replication assumptions explicit
- Desired depth: Fast triage
- Output tone: Clear operator memo

# Domain signals to inspect
- paper abstracts
- experiment logs
- datasets
- lab notes
- reviewer feedback

# Known risks to control
- citation drift
- p-hacking
- missing negative results
- unsupported generalization

# Method
1. Identify the smallest autonomous loop
2. Define tool boundaries and human-review points
3. Add evals for task success, safety, and cost
4. Specify telemetry for debugging

# Required output sections
1. Use case framing
2. Agent responsibilities
3. Tools and permissions
4. Memory and context
5. Evals and guardrails
6. Rollout plan

# Output contract
Return Markdown only.
Use concise headings, decision tables, and checklists.
Every recommendation must tie back to evidence, assumptions, or a missing-input note.

# Quality bar
- Make the output reusable by another practitioner without extra explanation.
- Separate facts, assumptions, and recommendations.
- Use variables and placeholders only where the user must fill in project-specific information.
- Ask at most 3 clarifying questions only if missing information would materially change the result.
- Do not invent private facts, metrics, laws, integrations, or user quotes.
- Prefer specific operational language over generic AI enthusiasm.
- Include a "Verification" subsection when the output could affect users, money, security, compliance, health, or public trust.
- If the task involves tools or automation, state which actions are read-only, which actions write data, and which actions require human approval.

Artefakte

1 Artefakte

Example Output: Research Science Agent System Blueprint

Inputs used

Project context: a literature map for retrieval-augmented agents in enterprise support
Target audience: scientists, research PMs, labs, technical founders
Success metric: activation, quality, and risk reduction
Available tools and data: paper database, notebook, citation manager, experiment tracker
Desired depth: Production-ready
Output tone: Clear operator memo

Generated Result

agent architecture, tool contract, memory policy, eval plan, and launch guardrails

Use case framing

The immediate decision is whether a literature map for retrieval-augmented agents in enterprise support is mature enough for a controlled pilot. The strongest evidence should come from paper abstracts and experiment logs; if either source is missing, mark the recommendation as provisional rather than filling the gap with assumptions.

Agent responsibilities

The AI system may draft research brief, hypothesis table, and experiment plan, summarize experiment logs, and propose next actions. It must not make irreversible changes, approve high-impact decisions, or treat unverified assumptions as facts.

Tools and permissions

Use citation manager as the primary working surface. Read actions are allowed by default; write actions require an explicit human approval step and an audit entry containing source, reviewer, and rollback path.

Memory and context

Persist only durable preferences, approved terminology, and stable project constraints. Do not store private user data, transient metrics, or unresolved claims from lab notes.

Evals and guardrails

Create at least 12 golden tasks: 6 normal cases, 3 edge cases, and 3 adversarial cases targeting citation drift. A passing result must cite the evidence source and state confidence.

Rollout plan

Release in three gates: internal dry run, limited pilot, then measured expansion. Each gate must show evidence that make replication assumptions explicit is true in practice, not only in documentation.

Recommended Decision

Proceed with a narrow pilot focused on paper abstracts and experiment logs. Treat citation drift as the primary launch blocker. The first milestone should prove that the workflow produces a usable research brief, hypothesis table, and experiment plan with clear evidence, named owners, and a review path for ambiguous cases.

Expected quality checks

The result is specific to AI-assisted literature review, hypothesis generation, experiment planning, and technical communication.
It includes the required sections: Use case framing, Agent responsibilities, Tools and permissions, Memory and context, Evals and guardrails, Rollout plan.
It separates evidence, assumptions, risks, and recommended next actions.
It includes practical verification steps, not only generic advice.
It names the most important failure mode for this domain: citation drift.

Reuse note

Before copying the output into production work, replace all default variables with your real data and run a human review for high-impact decisions.

README

README.md

Research Science: Agent System Blueprint

Use this prompt when you need agent architecture, tool contract, memory policy, eval plan, and launch guardrails for AI-assisted literature review, hypothesis generation, experiment planning, and technical communication.

Best for

scientists, research PMs, labs, technical founders
Teams that already have partial context but need a sharper, reusable artifact
AI workflows where the output must be auditable, editable, and easy to hand off

How to use

Replace the variables in the prompt with your real project context.
Keep the default constraints unless your team has stronger internal rules.
Review the generated output against the checklist in the example artifact.

Design notes

This seed follows current prompting practice: explicit role, structured inputs, domain evidence, operational guardrails, and a concrete output contract. It is written in English for international PromptHub users.