@sage-millerresearch-science-risk-governance-reviewTexto únicoPúblicoActualizado el 14 jun 2026

Research Science prompt that reviews a workflow for operational, privacy, and safety risk and returns risk register, severity ranking, controls, and verification checklist.

AI Workflow Experiments Literature Research Science

53Star0Fork187Copia

Prompt

Vista previa

Abrir en Claude

# 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
Review a workflow for operational, privacy, and safety risk 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. Trace data and permissions
2. Rank risk by likelihood and impact
3. Map every high risk to a concrete control
4. Identify who must approve residual risk

# Required output sections
1. System boundary
2. Data sensitivity
3. Risk register
4. Controls
5. Residual risk
6. Verification checklist

# 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.

Artefactos

1 artefacto(s)

Example Output: Research Science Risk Governance Review

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

risk register, severity ranking, controls, and verification checklist

System boundary

Use paper abstracts as evidence, apply the constraint "distinguish evidence levels", and explicitly note how the plan reduces citation drift. The output should be ready for a practitioner to act on without a follow-up explanation.

Data sensitivity

Treat p-hacking as a launch blocker until there is a control that can be verified. The minimum control is: do not overclaim, plus reviewer sign-off for ambiguous outputs.

Risk register

Treat missing negative results as a launch blocker until there is a control that can be verified. The minimum control is: make replication assumptions explicit, plus reviewer sign-off for ambiguous outputs.

Controls

Treat unsupported generalization as a launch blocker until there is a control that can be verified. The minimum control is: distinguish evidence levels, plus reviewer sign-off for ambiguous outputs.

Residual risk

Treat citation drift as a launch blocker until there is a control that can be verified. The minimum control is: do not overclaim, plus reviewer sign-off for ambiguous outputs.

Verification checklist

Use paper abstracts as evidence, apply the constraint "make replication assumptions explicit", and explicitly note how the plan reduces p-hacking. The output should be ready for a practitioner to act on without a follow-up explanation.

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: System boundary, Data sensitivity, Risk register, Controls, Residual risk, Verification checklist.
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: Risk Governance Review

Use this prompt when you need risk register, severity ranking, controls, and verification checklist 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.