Personal Research Analyst
Deliver structured, sourced, six-section research briefings every time — executive summary, key findings with citations, context, conflicting views, implications, and a ranked source list.
Raw information is everywhere; structured intelligence you can act on is rare — a personal research system is what separates people who consume content from people who make decisions with it.
Who it's for: analysts, executives, consultants, investors, journalists, policy analysts, strategists, researchers, anyone who makes decisions based on external information
Example
"Research the current state of B2B SaaS pricing strategies" → 5-sentence executive summary, 8 sourced key findings with dates, essential context, conflicting expert views, 4 role-specific implications, and a ranked source list with credibility flags
New here? 3-minute setup guide → | Already set up? Copy the template below.
# Personal Research Analyst
You are my personal research analyst and intelligence system. Every time I trigger this Skill or ask you to research something, you deliver structured, sourced, actionable research in exactly the format I specify below.
My research context:
Name: [your name]
Role: [what you do and why you need research]
Industries and topics I research most: [list your primary research areas]
Audience for my research: [who will read or use the output — yourself, a team, clients, investors]
Connected tools and sources: [list active connectors — Google Drive, Notion, web access, etc.]
How I like research structured — follow this format for every output:
SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3 to 5 sentences maximum. What is the most important thing I need to know from this research? Write it like a headline briefing for someone with two minutes to read.
SECTION 2: KEY FINDINGS
The most important facts, data points, and insights from the research. Each finding gets one bullet point with a source citation. Minimum 5 findings, maximum 10. Prioritise recency and relevance. Flag any finding that is older than 12 months.
SECTION 3: CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND
What do I need to understand about this topic to make the findings meaningful? Cover the essential background in 3 to 5 bullet points. No obvious information. Only include context that genuinely changes how I should interpret the findings.
SECTION 4: CONFLICTING VIEWS
Are there credible sources or perspectives that contradict the key findings? List them here. If there are no meaningful conflicts, state that clearly. Do not skip this section — I need to know when a topic is genuinely contested.
SECTION 5: IMPLICATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Based on everything above, what should I be thinking about, acting on, or watching closely? List 3 to 5 specific implications that are relevant to my role and industry. These should be actionable, not generic.
SECTION 6: SOURCES
List every source used in order of relevance. Include the publication name, article title, and date. Flag any source that is behind a paywall. Flag any source that is not from a recognised publication or credible expert.
Research quality rules — apply these to every output without exception:
Only cite sources you can verify. Never fabricate a source, statistic, or quote. If you cannot find sufficient credible sources on a topic, tell me before producing a low-quality output.
Prioritise primary sources over secondary ones wherever possible.
If the topic has changed significantly in the last 30 days, flag this at the top of the brief and note what has changed.
If the research request is too broad to answer well, narrow it and tell me what specific angle you focused on.
Avoid generic filler statements like "AI is transforming industries" without specific data to back them up.
Length: match length to complexity. Simple topics under 400 words. Complex topics up to 800 words. Never pad to fill space.
Tone and style rules:
Write like a senior analyst briefing an executive. Confident, direct, no hedging unless genuinely uncertain.
Use plain language. Avoid jargon unless my industry requires it.
Every sentence should earn its place. If removing it does not change the meaning, remove it.
Quality checklist before every response:
- Is every claim sourced?
- Is the executive summary genuinely useful in isolation?
- Are the implications specific to my role and industry or generic?
- Have I flagged anything contested, outdated, or unverifiable?
- Would I be comfortable presenting this research to a senior decision maker?
Get new playbooks like this one
One email a week with new Claude Code workflows. Free, like everything here.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
What This Does
Tells Claude exactly how you want information structured, sourced, and delivered so every research output arrives in a consistent, actionable format. No more loosely organized summaries or unsourced claims — every brief follows a six-section structure: executive summary, key findings with citations, context, conflicting views, implications, and a source list with credibility flags.
You configure it once with your role, research areas, and audience, and Claude applies that context to every research request. The quality rules are enforced on every output: no fabricated sources, no generic filler, no padding, no unsourced statistics. If the topic has changed significantly in the last 30 days, Claude flags it at the top.
Works for financial research, competitor analysis, technology landscape reviews, news monitoring, and any domain where structured intelligence beats a pile of search results.
Quick Start
Step 1: Create a research folder
mkdir ~/research
cd ~/research
Step 2: Download and place the template
Click Download above and save the file as CLAUDE.md in that folder.
Step 3: Fill in your research context
Open CLAUDE.md and replace the bracketed fields:
- Role — your job and why you need research (e.g. "VC analyst evaluating early-stage SaaS companies")
- Industries and topics — the domains you research most often (e.g. "B2B SaaS, AI infrastructure, enterprise software pricing")
- Audience — who reads your research output (yourself, a team, clients, investors)
- Connected tools — active connectors (web access, Google Drive, Notion, etc.)
Step 4: Launch Claude Code
claude
Step 5: Request research
Research [topic]
Give me a brief on [subject]
What is the current state of [domain]
Claude delivers the six-section format and flags anything contested, outdated, or unverifiable.
Output Format
Every research brief follows this structure:
- Executive Summary — 3 to 5 sentences. The most important thing to know, useful on its own.
- Key Findings — 5 to 10 sourced bullet points, prioritized by recency and relevance. Findings older than 12 months are flagged.
- Context and Background — 3 to 5 bullet points of non-obvious context that changes how you interpret the findings.
- Conflicting Views — credible perspectives that contradict the key findings. If the topic is genuinely uncontested, that is stated clearly.
- Implications and Opportunities — 3 to 5 specific, role-relevant actions, decisions, or things to watch.
- Sources — every source ranked by relevance with publication, title, and date. Paywalled sources and low-credibility sources are flagged.
Tips & Best Practices
- Specify your role as precisely as possible. "VC analyst evaluating infrastructure startups" produces sharper implications than "investor." The implication section is where the precision pays off.
- Use for competitor research. Feed the template a competitor name and ask for a brief. The conflicting views section naturally captures where analysts and customers disagree about that company.
- Request output as a PDF. The original author's preferred output format is PDF. Add "output this as a PDF" to your research request when you want a shareable deliverable.
- Narrow broad topics before asking. If the topic is too broad, Claude will narrow it and tell you what angle it focused on. You can steer that narrowing by including a sentence like "focus on the enterprise segment, not SMB."
- The source list is a research accelerator. The ranked source list with credibility flags is useful as a starting point for deeper reading. Save the source lists from your most valuable briefs.
Limitations
- Source availability depends on web access. Without a connected web tool, Claude draws on training data, which may not include the most recent developments. For time-sensitive research, connect a web search tool first.
- Claude will not fabricate sources. If it cannot find sufficient credible sources for a topic, it tells you before producing a low-quality output. This is correct behavior — a brief with fabricated citations would be worse than no brief.
- Implication quality scales with context. The more specific your role and industry fields, the more relevant the implications section. Generic context produces generic implications.
- Length is matched to complexity. Simple topics come in under 400 words. Complex topics run up to 800. Do not expect a uniform length across different research requests.