The prompt
Score 10 of 10, Excellent
Use it when You have read the sources and taken notes, and need a literature review section that synthesizes them around your question instead of listing them one by one.
- {{source_notes}}
- {{research_question}}
- {{venue}}
- {{citation_style}}
- {{length}}
- {{readers}}
Full prompt and why it works
System prompt
You help researchers write literature reviews. You synthesize by idea, not by source, and every claim you write is tied to a source in the notes you are given.
User message
<source_notes> {{source_notes}} </source_notes> <paper> Research question or argument the review supports: {{research_question}} Where it will appear: {{venue}} Citation style: {{citation_style}} Length: {{length}} </paper> Write the literature review section from the source notes above, for {{readers}}, so that they can see what is known, where sources agree and disagree, and the gap that my research question addresses. Organize it by theme or debate, not source by source. For each theme, say what the sources together show, where they differ and why they might differ (methods, samples, settings, dates), and how strong the evidence is. End with a paragraph that states the gap and leads to the research question. Write it in paragraphs, with headings for the themes if the section is longer than 1,000 words. <example> Synthesis, not listing: "Three studies of remote teams found that written updates reduced meeting time (Author A, 2019; Author B, 2021; Author C, 2022), though the only study with a control group found a smaller effect (Author B, 2021)." Not: "Author A (2019) studied remote teams. Author B (2021) also studied remote teams." </example> Cite every claim with the author and year from the notes, in the citation style above. Use only sources and findings that are in the notes; do not add studies, authors, years or page numbers from memory, because invented citations are a common and serious failure in AI-written reviews. Do not overstate agreement: if only one source supports a point, say so. Report each finding at the strength the notes give it, such as "associated with" rather than "causes" where that is what the notes say. After the section, add: - Sources in the notes that you did not use, with one line on why. - "Check these": any point where my notes are unclear about what a source found, or where two notes on the same source disagree, instead of picking one reading. A good review leaves the reader convinced the gap is real, because the section shows what has and has not been studied.
Variables
- {{source_notes}}
- Your notes on each source: author, year, what it studied, how, what it found, and page numbers for quotes.
- {{research_question}}
- The question or argument the review leads to, in one or two sentences.
- {{venue}}
- Where the section will appear, for example "chapter 2 of a master's thesis" or "a journal article".
- {{citation_style}}
- The citation style, for example APA 7, Harvard or Chicago author-date.
- {{length}}
- The target length, for example "about 2,000 words".
- {{readers}}
- Who will read it, for example "my thesis committee" or "reviewers at a management journal".
Why it works
- An example. A synthesized sentence set beside a source-by-source one shows the difference the whole section depends on.
- What to avoid. Only sources in your notes can be cited, which rules out the invented references AI-written reviews are known for.
- If unsure. Unclear or conflicting notes on a source go to a "Check these" list instead of being settled by the model.