Answer my request using an evidence-bound method. My task is [TASK]. You may use only [ALLOWED SOURCES], plus general reasoning that you clearly label as inference. The relevant material is [SOURCE MATERIAL]. The intended reader is [AUDIENCE], and the decision or action this answer will support is [USE CASE]. Do not fill gaps with plausible details. Do not invent citations, links, quotations, dates, names, statistics, calculations, product features, policies, or events. If the supplied material conflicts, report the conflict rather than resolving it silently. If a fact may have changed since the source was created, mark it as time-sensitive and state the source date if available. If web research is not explicitly included in the allowed sources, do not imply that you searched the web. Work in this order: extract directly supported facts; identify open questions and assumptions; perform only the reasoning needed for the task; then draft the answer. Preserve important qualifiers such as sample size, geography, time period, exceptions, and attribution. For calculations, show the formula, inputs, and units. For recommendations, distinguish what the evidence establishes from the judgment call. Output exactly:
1. Direct answer in [OUTPUT FORMAT].
2. Evidence table: claim, source or source excerpt, support level (direct/inference/unknown), and caveat.
3. Missing information and the smallest next verification step for each item.
4. Assumptions used.
Before answering, check every factual sentence against an allowed source and flag any unsupported sentence instead of stating it. Also check that citations identify a real provided source rather than a fabricated reference. Ask up to 3 clarifying questions only if a required input is missing.Fill in
| Placeholder | What to enter | Example |
|---|---|---|
| [TASK] | State the question or work product you need the model to complete. | Summarize whether our pilot reduced customer-support response time |
| [ALLOWED SOURCES] | Specify the exact documents, databases, websites, or source types the model may use. | Only the attached weekly support reports and pilot retrospective |
| [SOURCE MATERIAL] | Paste or attach the source content, excerpts, links, or notes the answer must rely on. | Week 1 median first response: 11h; week 4: 7h; retrospective notes that staffing increased by one agent in week 3 |
| [AUDIENCE] | Name who will read the answer and what level of detail they need. | VP of Customer Experience |
| [USE CASE] | State the decision, draft, or action the answer will support. | Decide whether to extend the pilot for another month |
| [OUTPUT FORMAT] | Specify the required output form, such as a memo, table, or bullet brief. | A 250-word decision memo |
How to use
- Name the allowed sources explicitly and paste the relevant portions; a model cannot verify material it cannot see.
- Set an output format that fits the decision, such as an evidence table for a recommendation or a claim log for a public draft.
- Read the unknowns and assumptions before using the direct answer, especially when a source is old or incomplete.
- Follow up with: “Rewrite the memo using only direct support; move every inference into a separate section.”
Variations
Source-grounded brief
Use when turning internal documents into a leadership brief.
Create a [LENGTH] brief from only these materials: [DOCUMENTS]. It will be read by [AUDIENCE] to decide [DECISION]. State each conclusion with its supporting document and page, section, or excerpt. Separate direct findings from inferences, quantify only values present in the documents, and list contradictions or unknowns. Output an executive summary, evidence-backed findings, risks, and verification questions. Do not add industry context unless it appears in the supplied materials.
Citation audit
Use when checking an existing draft for unsupported factual claims.
Audit this [DRAFT] against [SOURCES]. Create a table for every factual claim with its exact supporting passage, support status (supported, partially supported, unsupported, or contradicted), and the smallest safe rewrite where needed. Treat quotations, numbers, dates, and named entities as separate claims. Do not repair unsupported claims by inventing evidence. Finish with a clean revised draft containing only supported statements.
Research plan
Use when evidence is not yet available and you need a defensible way to gather it.
Develop a research plan for [QUESTION] to support [DECISION]. Available sources are [CURRENT SOURCES], and constraints are [CONSTRAINTS]. Define the claims that need evidence, preferred primary sources, search terms or data fields, inclusion and exclusion rules, and how to record publication date and uncertainty. Output a research matrix and a stop rule for when evidence is insufficient. Do not state a conclusion before evidence is collected.
Tips
- Use a claim-by-claim evidence table for any work that contains metrics, quotations, policy statements, or competitive claims.
- Treat a source date as part of the evidence, especially for prices, laws, product features, leadership roles, and market conditions.
- Ask the model to label inferences, not eliminate them; an explicit inference can be useful, while a disguised one is risky.
- For high-stakes medical, legal, financial, or safety decisions, use this prompt to prepare questions and evidence for a qualified professional rather than as a substitute for one.
FAQ
Can a prompt guarantee that Claude will never hallucinate?
No. It can make uncertainty visible and constrain the task, but you still need to validate important claims against the underlying sources.
What counts as an allowed source?
Any source you explicitly permit, such as an attached document, a named database, or current web research. State the boundary so the model does not imply evidence it lacks.
Should I ask for citations?
Yes, but require citations to identifiable provided material. A citation format alone does not prove that a claim is supported.