"Ask Claude, copy the answer, and close the tab." "You feel like you understood it, but not deeply enough to explain it to others."
If that happens every time you research, it's likely not because Claude lacks power, but because you're trying to finish everything with a single question.
I was like that for a long time. Using it as a search box replacement and closing it after the first answer.
Later, I couldn't remember what the conclusion actually was. I was using a brilliant partner as just a fast dictionary.
The turning point for me was the concept of a research system called STORM, published by Stanford.
STORM demonstrated in its paper that researching from multiple perspectives, rather than just one, resulted in significantly higher quality articles.
Specifically, the percentage of articles judged by experts as "well-organized" was 25 points higher in absolute terms, and the breadth of coverage was 10 points higher (arXiv:2402.14207).
You can mimic this "multi-perspective questioning" method simply by pasting four prompts into Claude in order, without installing any special software.
I have provided all four prompts below.
By the time you finish reading, you will have four copy-pasteable prompts to transform Claude from an "occasional search replacement" into a "research partner who identifies all key points in 5 minutes."
Related Article: Claude Code Textbook - Basics
https://note.com/nobel/n/n7d7a422f828f
What is STORM anyway?
First, a little bit about the source material.
STORM is a research system created by the Stanford OVAL Lab (Open Virtual Assistant Lab) that automatically writes long-form articles with citations when given a theme.
The name stands for Synthesis of Topic Outlines through Retrieval and Multi-perspective Question Asking, and it was presented at the international conference on natural language processing, NAACL 2024 (arXiv:2402.14207).
The code is available on GitHub under the MIT license, with over 28,000 stars at the time of writing. There is also a live version you can try immediately in your browser (storm.genie.stanford.edu), which reportedly has over 70,000 users.
When you enter a theme, you can see it building an article with citations while searching the web in the background. If you want a long-form text with source links immediately, using the live version is faster. What I'm introducing in this article is not that full automation, but a way to mimic the core concept of STORM—"multi-perspective questioning"—within your usual Claude conversations.
The key to STORM is that it doesn't start writing immediately. It divides the "pre-research" stage into three steps: (1) identifying possible perspectives for the theme, (2) simulating conversations where writers with those perspectives ask experts questions, and (3) organizing the gathered information into an outline. According to the paper, the heart of automating research is "whether you can automatically come up with good questions," and simply asking the AI to "ask questions" doesn't work well. That's why you prepare multiple perspectives first to gain breadth and depth.
It's important to clarify the scope. STORM is a system to "help with pre-research." The official README explicitly states that the output is not yet at a quality suitable for publication and requires significant editing, but it is useful for the pre-research stage for experienced Wikipedia editors. In other words, what I'm introducing here isn't a "magic trick for Claude to spit out a perfect article," but a "template to have Claude identify all the points of discussion in 5 minutes before a human makes a judgment."
Why a "Single Question" Loses
When you ask Claude "Tell me about [Topic]," you usually get the majority view. The most common framework, a surface-level summary. It's safe and not bad, but it's not deep.
But for any single theme, different people see different things. For example, if you ask a practitioner, a researcher, a skeptic, an economist, and a historian "Does remote work increase productivity?", the answers will be completely different. The practitioner sees the reality on the ground, the skeptic sees facts the proponents ignore, and the economist sees who profits. This is essentially what a PhD student does: setting multiple questions simultaneously rather than just one.
The STORM paper showed this difference in numbers. Articles created by setting multi-perspective questions were 25 points higher in organization and 10 points higher in coverage compared to a baseline method (the usual way of deciding an outline first and then filling it in with search results). This is the central discovery of STORM: "Increasing perspectives reveals blind spots that a single question can never see."
And this concept of multi-perspective questioning can be reproduced without special software. Here is the main topic.
You send four prompts to Claude in order to create a flow of:
(1) Scanning from 5 perspectives
(2) Mapping contradictions
(3) Integrating
(4) Self-auditing
Prompt 1: Scanning from 5 Perspectives
This is the heart of the method. Paste the prompt below into Claude, replacing only the theme in the first line with your own.
1I want to deeply understand [Theme].2Please act as 5 experts and analyze it from their respective standpoints.341. Practitioner: Someone who handles this daily.5 What is the reality on the ground that scholars often overlook?62. Scholar: Someone who has researched this for years.7 What does the peer-reviewed evidence actually show?8 Where does it conflict with common wisdom?93. Skeptic: Someone who believes the mainstream view is wrong.10 What is the strongest counter-argument?11 What facts are proponents conveniently ignoring?124. Economic Eye: Someone who follows the money.13 Who profits from the current narrative?14 What interests are distorting the research or information?155. Historical Eye: Someone who has seen similar patterns in the past.16 What are the historical parallels?17 How did those turn out?1819For each perspective, please provide:20- The central claim in 2 sentences21- The strongest evidence supporting it22- One insight that only this perspective can offer and wouldn't come from others
What you get back are five different ways of reading the same theme. The practitioner brings reality, the skeptic shakes the premises, the economist brings interests, and the historian brings patterns. In 60 seconds of work, you align points of discussion that a single question would miss.
One Action for Today: Choose a theme you're currently curious about and throw it into the first line of this prompt. Just by aligning five voices, you'll realize you were only looking from one perspective until now.
Prompt 2: Mapping Contradictions
Next, have Claude find where the five voices clash. Where opinions collide is where true understanding lies.
1Based on the 5 perspectives above, please organize the contradictions.231. Where do two or more perspectives directly conflict?4 For each conflict, list the specific competing claims.52. Which perspective has the strongest evidence?6 Which is the weakest? Why?73. What is the "one question" that, if answered, would resolve the biggest contradiction?84. What do all perspectives agree on?9 (Since even opponents agree, this is likely certain.)105. What topic did none of the perspectives mention?11 (This is the blind spot of the entire field. Often the most valuable.)
What you get back is a map of where and why experts disagree. Most people skip this step. But this is the fork in the road between superficial understanding and true understanding. Points everyone agrees on are likely correct. Points no one mentions are the voids in that field.
One Action for Today: Just paste this in the same conversation after Prompt 1. Even just the two lines for "points everyone agreed on" and "points no one mentioned" are worth keeping in your notes.
Prompt 3: Integrating into a Single Briefing
Now, have Claude synthesize the materials so far into a single research memo.
1Integrate the 5 perspectives and the contradiction map to create a research memo.231. One-paragraph summary: Summarize for a busy person with only 60 seconds,4 conveying the "nuance," not just the headings.52. Top 5 Key Findings: List the most important things learned so far,6 ordered by certainty. For each, note "which perspective supports it and7 which perspective objects."83. Hidden Connections: One surprising link between findings that only becomes9 visible by overlapping the 5 perspectives.104. Implications for Action: Based on this evidence, what specifically should11 a person in [Your Position/Role] change?125. The Frontier Question: The one question that, if answered, would13 fundamentally change the understanding of this theme.
What you get back is a briefing that a single expert couldn't write. It considers all angles, names the contradictions, ranks them by certainty, and lands on specific actions. With the map of discussion points ready, you can see what judgment you need to make next.
One Action for Today: In the brackets for number 4, put your job title or role (e.g., "Small business owner," "Recruiter") to get personalized implications rather than generalities.
Prompt 4: Self-Auditing
STORM has a weakness acknowledged by its creators. The authors point out that the output can suffer from "source bias transfer" and "over-association of irrelevant facts." This also happens when you have Claude do the same. Finally, have it grade its own output to put a brake on this.
1Please audit the research memo you just created.231. Confidence Score: Rate each of the Top 5 Key Findings on a scale of 1-104 for reliability. Explain the reason for each score.52. Weakest Point: Which claim are you least confident in?6 What specific information is needed to verify it?73. Bias Check: Which perspective had an excessive influence on the integration?8 Is any specific voice becoming dominant?94. Missing Perspective: Was there a "6th perspective" that could change the conclusion?105. Overall Evaluation: If a third-party expert saw this memo,11 what score would they give it and what would they say to fix?
What you get back is an honest inspection of your research. Strong claims, weak claims, over-influenced perspectives, and missing angles. The items that receive a low "Confidence Score" are the points where you should finally go and check primary sources yourself.
One Action for Today: Choose one claim that the audit labeled as "low reliability" and verify its source on an official website or primary document. This is the final step to avoid relying entirely on AI.
Summarizing the 5-Minute Workflow
The four prompts flow like this:
- Minute 1: Prompt 1 → 5 Perspectives
- Minutes 2-3: Prompt 2 → Contradiction Map
- Minutes 3-4: Prompt 3 → Research Memo
- Minute 5: Prompt 4 → What's certain and what's suspicious
In 5 minutes, you complete a cycle of multi-perspective point identification, contradiction analysis, integration, and certainty grading. Of course, this doesn't mean you've "surpassed the experts." This is merely the preparation before a human makes a judgment. But compared to just looking at one search result, your starting point changes completely.
Let me introduce myself. I'm tatsuki (@nobel_824). I support AI utilization for small and medium-sized enterprises, helping with the business implementation of Claude/Codex while running Claude Code all day myself. When I suddenly need to research a client's new industry, these 4 prompts are the first thing I throw in.
When is this effective?
This template can be used for almost any entry point of research. I often use it in the following situations:
Before writing an article or proposal. By running the 4 prompts, you can capture angles that others aren't touching from the start. Before a major decision. Since the practitioner gives "what moves in reality," the skeptic gives "what's wrong," and the economist gives "who profits," it's more grounded than a document from only the pro-side. Before starting to learn an unknown field. By asking the practitioner "what to learn first" and the skeptic "what is being overhyped," you can reduce unnecessary detours. Even before a business meeting or interview, looking at the other party from 5 perspectives changes the quality of your prepared Q&A.
What they have in common is that I'm using it to "identify all points of discussion" rather than to "get an answer." Since you are the one who ultimately decides, it works well as a tool to align all decision-making materials without omission.
Three Pitfalls to Watch Out For
While convenient, there are points to be careful about. Just three.
First is hallucinations (generation of plausible but false information). The more specifically you have the 5 perspectives speak, the more persuasive the answer becomes. But persuasiveness and correctness are different. For proper nouns, numbers, and dates, always verify with primary information, starting with those the Prompt 4 audit labeled as "weak." This cannot be skipped.
Second is the transfer of source bias. This is a weakness mentioned in the STORM paper; if the sources are biased, that bias carries over to the output. Since you can't choose the sources Claude sees in the background, if all 5 perspectives are pointing in the same direction, you should doubt whether it's truly all-encompassing or if they just share the same bias.
Third is the overconfidence of "becoming an expert in 5 minutes." This template is fast at preparation, not at expert knowledge itself. It's better to treat the resulting memo as a "list of hypotheses to be verified from now on," which ultimately leads to better decisions.
Conclusion: Value is Shifting from "Searchers" to "Question Designers"
In an era where AI returns good answers as a matter of course, I feel the difference is shifting from "how many answers you know" to "what kind of questions you can set from how many angles."
Looking at one search result and closing it is like turning back at the entrance. In the same 5 minutes, if you scan with 5 perspectives, map contradictions, integrate, and run a self-audit, your starting point changes completely. What Stanford showed in its paper was the obvious—but often neglected—fact that "increasing perspectives reduces blind spots." To mimic that with Claude, all you need is four copy-pastes.
3 Steps to Try Today
- [ ] Decide on one theme you want to research most and paste Prompt 1 into Claude.
- [ ] Paste Prompts 2 → 3 → 4 in the same conversation and complete the cycle in 5 minutes.
- [ ] Choose one claim that the audit (Prompt 4) labeled as "low reliability" and verify it with primary information.
The next time you research something, what "5 questions" will you have Claude set for you?
Useful information that cannot be shared on X is being shared in a LINE OpenChat. If you are interested in utilizing Claude Code/Codex or X operations using AI, please join us.
OpenChat: https://t.co/90omRA4UQ7
If you quote this article with your impressions, I will repost all of them!
Reference Links
- Shao et al. (2024) Assisting in Writing Wikipedia-like Articles From Scratch with Large Language Models (STORM Paper, NAACL 2024), arXiv:2402.14207 : https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.14207
- STORM Paper (ACL Anthology version) : https://aclanthology.org/2024.naacl-long.347/
- stanford-oval/storm (Official implementation, MIT license, including Co-STORM) : https://github.com/stanford-oval/storm
- STORM Live Version (Free research preview) : https://storm.genie.stanford.edu/
- Stanford STORM Project Site : https://storm-project.stanford.edu/
