Claude · Module 04 of 8

Research

Synthesise sources, compare options, and reason through complex questions.

2 lessons8 exercises
Topics & techniques

Summarisation

Compress documents without losing the point.

4 cards →
Workflow
Extract Claims With Citations You Can Check
A summarising pattern where you ask Claude to return each key point paired with the exact quote or section it came from, so every claim in the summary is traceable back to the source. The output isn't just a digest — it's a digest you can audit line by line.
L2 · Context engineering
Best practice
Lead With the Headline, Then the Detail
Structuring a summary so the single most important takeaway comes first — one line, the bottom line — followed by the key points, followed by supporting detail. The reader gets the conclusion immediately and descends into detail only as far as they need. It's the inverted pyramid, applied to AI summaries.
L2 · Context engineering
Best practice
Summarise for a Specific Reader and Purpose
Telling Claude who the summary is for and what they'll do with it — 'for an executive deciding whether to fund this', 'for an engineer who needs the technical constraints' — so the summary keeps what that reader needs and cuts what they don't, rather than producing a generic shrink of the source.
L2 · Context engineering
Knowledge card
Summarise Long Documents Without Losing the Thread
Summarising a long document by having Claude condense it in sections and then reconcile those into one coherent brief — while explicitly tracking the argument that runs through it.
L2 · Context engineering

Comparing options

Turn a messy set of choices into a decision you can defend.

4 cards →
Best practice
Ask What Would Change the Recommendation
A follow-up move after Claude recommends an option: ask what would have to be true — or different — for it to change its recommendation. You're probing how robust the choice is by finding the assumptions and thresholds it actually hinges on.
L3 · Workflows
Workflow
Build a Weighted Scorecard, Not a Vibe
A comparison method where you turn a decision into a scored matrix: list the criteria that matter, assign each a weight reflecting how much it matters, have Claude score every option against every criterion, and compute a weighted total. The output is a ranking you can inspect, not a paragraph of on-the-one-hand prose.
L3 · Workflows
Workflow
Name Your Criteria Before Claude Compares the Options
A decision workflow where you define the criteria that matter — and their relative weight — before asking Claude to compare options against them, rather than asking an open 'which is better?' that lets the framing float.
L2 · Context engineering
Best practice
Make Claude Argue the Side You Didn't Pick
A bias-check where, once you're leaning toward a choice, you ask Claude to build the strongest possible case for the option you're rejecting — a genuine steelman, not a token counterpoint — so your decision survives contact with its best objection.
L3 · Workflows
Claude for research

Long context makes Claude a real research partner

Claude's large context window is a genuine advantage for research: you can hand it entire reports, transcripts, or several documents at once and ask it to reason across all of them, rather than feeding it fragments. Because it tends to stay faithful to the material, its summaries and comparisons are grounded in what you actually gave it. The skill is in the question — define the decision you are trying to make so Claude synthesises toward that, instead of producing an even summary of everything.

Summarise and compare with a purpose

The two core research moves are summarisation and comparison, and both improve when you tell Claude what the output is for. 'Summarise this for a go/no-go decision, focusing on risk' beats 'summarise this'. 'Compare these two options on cost, effort, and lock-in for a small team' beats 'compare these'. Give it the frame and the criteria, and Claude turns a pile of source material into something you can decide from.

The research topics to explore

This section covers summarisation (compressing without losing the decisive point) and comparison (weighing options against clear criteria). Work through the cards below to make Claude a dependable partner for reasoning over documents.

Frequently asked
Is Claude good for research and analysis?

Yes — its large context window lets it reason across long documents and multiple sources at once, and it tends to stay grounded in the material you provide. Framing a sharp question focused on your decision is what turns that capability into useful analysis.

How do I summarise long documents with Claude?

Give Claude the document and tell it what the summary is for and who will read it. A purpose-driven summary — 'for a decision on X, focusing on risk and cost' — is far more useful than a generic paraphrase.

Can Claude compare multiple documents?

Yes. Its long context window lets you provide several documents together and ask it to compare them on criteria you specify. Naming the criteria and the decision keeps the comparison focused and actionable.

How much can Claude read at once?

Claude's context window is large enough to take in long reports, transcripts, or several documents in a single pass. The practical limit is relevance, not just size — including unrelated material dilutes the analysis, so give it what matters.

Test yourself

How well do you research with Claude?

Six questions on summarising sources and making decisions you can defend — traceable claims, honest comparisons, and the bias checks most people skip. No sign-up, instant score, and you can share how you did.

  1. Q1 You want a summary whose claims you can actually check. What do you ask for?
  2. Q2 What's missing from the instruction 'summarise this document'?
  3. Q3 Where should the single most important takeaway go in a summary?
  4. Q4 Before Claude compares your options, what has to happen?
  5. Q5 Claude recommends an option. What's the sharpest follow-up?
  6. Q6 You're leaning toward option A. What's the useful bias check?
0 / 6 answered