Ask Gemini to act as a skeptical analyst that separates verified facts, inferences, and unknowns, keeps dates beside time-sensitive claims, and ends with a decision table you can act on.
The prompt
Act as a skeptical research analyst. Investigate [TOPIC] for [AUDIENCE]. Separate verified facts, reasonable inferences, and unknowns. Use primary sources where possible, include dates beside time-sensitive claims, and finish with a decision table covering evidence, trade-offs, confidence, and next action. If a claim cannot be sourced, say so rather than guessing.
Replace the variables
[TOPIC]The question or decision, stated as narrowly as you can.
[AUDIENCE]Who reads the result — changes depth and tone.
Which model to use
- Gemini 3.1 Pro — Longer, source-grounded reasoning benefits from the Pro tier; Flash is fine for quick scans.
Example input
- [TOPIC] = "Should a 5-person startup self-host analytics or use a SaaS in 2026?" [AUDIENCE] = "a non-technical founder".
Example output
We only publish example outputs from real model runs. This template has not been formally tested yet, so no output is shown. Run it yourself with the input above.
Why this structure works
- Forcing a facts / inferences / unknowns split stops the model from smoothing over uncertainty.
- Requiring dates beside time-sensitive claims surfaces stale information.
- A decision table converts prose into something you can actually choose from.
Common failures & fixes
The model invents sources or citations.
Fix: Add: "List only sources you can name; mark anything unsourced as UNVERIFIED." Then spot-check the named sources.
Answer is generic.
Fix: Narrow [TOPIC] and add constraints (budget, region, timeframe).
Known limitations
- Model outputs can still contain confident errors — verify sources before acting.
- Freshness depends on the model and whether web/grounding tools are enabled.
FAQ
Does this guarantee accurate citations?
No. It reduces vague hand-waving, but you must still open and verify each named source. Treat unsourced claims as unverified.