Compare Two Research Prompts
'Research X and tell me what's best' against a scoped prompt with criteria and source rules — compared on clarity, where research prompts live or die.
Overview
Research prompts fail by being unfalsifiable: 'find the best option' gives the model nothing to be wrong about, so it returns a confident overview of everything. The fix is scope, criteria, and source rules — and a comparison makes the gap measurable. The loaded pair asks the same question two ways; the clarity and specificity scores show why one returns a decision input and the other returns a Wikipedia summary.
Workflow
-
Compare with Clarity focus
The loaded pair shares a goal. A names a category; B names candidates, criteria, a team size, and source rules.
-
Spot A's contradiction
'Comprehensive but keep it short' is flagged in the risk section — the most common research-prompt conflict.
-
Note what makes B falsifiable
Named criteria mean the answer can be checked. That's the line between research and content.
-
Scope your own ask
Rewrite your open-ended research prompt with candidates, criteria, and an output shape, then compare against the original.
Why This Works
- Named evaluation criteria force the model to answer your question instead of summarising the topic
- Source rules ('vendor pricing pages, note the date') make claims auditable instead of plausible
- The contradiction check catches 'comprehensive but short' before it silently averages into neither
Best for
- Decision-support research where the output feeds a real choice
- Comparison questions (tools, vendors, approaches) with nameable criteria
- Anyone whose research prompts keep returning generic overviews
Not for
- Formatting a vague research request into sections — the Prompt Formatter does that
- Synthesizing sources you already collected — that's a synthesis workflow, not prompt comparison
Use cases
- Tightening a research ask before spending a long model run on it
- Comparing your research prompt against a scoped rewrite to see what the scoping buys
- Catching the 'comprehensive but short' contradiction before it produces a muddled answer