@sage-millerresearch-science-automation-playbook单文本公开更新于 2026年6月14日

Research Science prompt that maps a manual workflow into safe tool-assisted automation and returns workflow map, tool schema, approval gates, and rollback plan.

AI Workflow Experiments Literature Research Science

61收藏0Fork100复制

Prompt

预览

在 Claude 打开

# 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
Map a manual workflow into safe tool-assisted automation 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. Separate read actions from write actions
2. Put irreversible actions behind explicit approval
3. Define idempotency and retry behavior
4. Add audit logs

# Required output sections
1. Current workflow
2. Automation candidates
3. Tool interfaces
4. Approval gates
5. Failure recovery
6. Implementation slices

# 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.

产物

1 个产物

Example Output: Research Science Tool Automation Playbook

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

workflow map, tool schema, approval gates, and rollback plan

Current workflow

Start with the manual path that uses paper abstracts. Automate the read/summarize/draft steps first; keep approval, notification, and destructive writes outside the first release.

Automation candidates

Start with the manual path that uses experiment logs. Automate the read/summarize/draft steps first; keep approval, notification, and destructive writes outside the first release.

Tool interfaces

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.

Approval gates

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

Failure recovery

Use reviewer feedback as evidence, apply the constraint "do not overclaim", 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.

Implementation slices

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: Current workflow, Automation candidates, Tool interfaces, Approval gates, Failure recovery, Implementation slices.
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: Tool Automation Playbook

Use this prompt when you need workflow map, tool schema, approval gates, and rollback plan 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.