Claude prompts for comparing sources, setting project instructions and creating reviewable artifacts without hiding missing evidence.
Identify agreements, conflicts and missing evidence before writing a brief.
Compare the two source excerpts below for {{decision}}.
Source A:
{{source_a}}
Source B:
{{source_b}}
Return a table with: claim, Source A evidence, Source B evidence, status (agrees, conflicts or missing), and what must be verified. Quote only short phrases. Do not resolve a conflict without evidence.Decision: choose a vendor. Source A says setup takes two weeks. Source B says onboarding usually takes four to six weeks.
Claim: implementation time. A: two weeks. B: four to six weeks. Status: conflicts. Verify: scope, start point and whether migration is included.
Before you use itConfirm that every status matches the supplied excerpts and that unresolved conflicts stay visible.
Turn a stable review process into concise instructions for a Claude Project.
Draft project instructions for {{project_goal}}. Use these rules:
{{rules}}
Include: allowed sources, required output, facts that must never be invented, when to mark [NEEDS INPUT], and a final review checklist. Keep the instructions under 250 words. Do not add policies I did not supply.Goal: review vendor proposals. Rules: use uploaded proposals only; compare price, timeline and exclusions; flag missing terms.
Use only uploaded proposals. Compare price, timeline and exclusions in a table. Mark absent terms [NEEDS INPUT]. Do not infer discounts or commitments.
Before you use itTest the instructions in a fresh project chat with one missing fact and one conflicting fact.
Create a standalone table, checklist or document with acceptance criteria.
Create an artifact for {{audience}} that helps them {{decision}}. Format: {{format}}. Use only this material:
{{source_material}}
Acceptance criteria:
{{criteria}}
Keep missing information visible as [NEEDS INPUT]. After the artifact, list which criteria passed and which need revision.Audience: operations lead. Decision: approve a launch. Format: readiness table. Criteria: owner and due date for every open item.
Readiness table with item, owner, due date and status. Any absent owner or date is marked [NEEDS INPUT].
Before you use itCheck the artifact against the criteria rather than judging it by polish alone.
Copy a prompt, replace the text in double braces with your details, then adjust the first draft.
“Summarize these files” leaves Claude to guess what matters. Name the decision the reader must make, then ask for the evidence, conflicts and missing facts that affect it.
Before reusing a prompt, remove a required date or add two conflicting figures. A dependable prompt should expose the problem instead of quietly producing a polished answer.
Use these prompts when the answer must remain traceable to documents, rules or acceptance criteria you provide.
Task: {{task}}. Source material: {{source_material}}. Intended decision: {{decision}}. Use only the supplied material. Mark missing facts [NEEDS INPUT], preserve disagreements between sources, and return {{output_format}}. End with a short list of claims that still require verification.Task: compare two vendor proposals. Decision: shortlist one vendor. Output: evidence table and open questions.
Implementation time: Vendor A says two weeks; Vendor B says four to six weeks. Conflict requires scope confirmation before shortlisting.