Skip to content
Templates/Research
ResearchLow risk

Research Summary Loop

Collect sources, summarize findings, and produce a structured research brief with source notes.

What this Loop Engineering template does

Synthesize multiple sources into a structured brief that separates facts, assumptions, and recommendations.

Cite a source for every factual claim. Flag contradictions. Do not fabricate citations.

When to use it

Literature or landscape reviews
Decision briefs
Source-backed summaries

When not to use it

Single-source questions
Unverifiable topics
Opinion pieces

Validation checks

validation
Every factual claim has a source note
Contradictions are flagged
Summary separates facts, assumptions, and recommendations

Boundaries & stop rule

!Do not fabricate citations
!Do not over-quote sources
!Do not hide uncertainty
Stop rule — Stop when every claim is sourced and the brief separates facts, assumptions, and recommendations. If sources conflict or cannot be verified, present the uncertainty rather than resolving it arbitrarily.

Copy the loop prompt

claude-goal.txt
/goal Synthesize multiple sources into a structured brief that separates facts, assumptions, and recommendations.
 
Task type: Research Summary
Target tool: Generic Agent
 
Work toward this goal until all validation checks pass or the stop rule is reached.
 
Design hypothesis:
This research summary loop can produce a safer result if the scope stays narrow, validation is explicit, and a checker can reject shortcut work.
 
Smallest useful run:
Run one bounded pass on the newest relevant signal before expanding scope or adding a schedule.
 
Loop cycle:
1. Discovery — Read the latest signal for this template before acting: CI output, issue detail, review comment, dataset report, or content brief.
2. Handoff — Hand the work to one agent in an isolated branch, worktree, or clearly scoped session. Keep final approval with a human.
3. Verification — Use an independent review pass to confirm the result, inspect the diff or artifact, and reject shortcut work.
4. Persistence — Save a short run note with the signal reviewed, actions taken, validation result, and next recommended step.
5. Scheduling — Run manually until the loop is reliable; only then consider a scheduled or event-triggered run.
 
Context:
Cite a source for every factual claim. Flag contradictions. Do not fabricate citations.
 
Validation:
Every factual claim has a source note
Contradictions are flagged
Summary separates facts, assumptions, and recommendations
 
Validation evidence:
Record the original signal, checks run, final result, changed files or artifacts, and any checker rejection.
 
Independent checker:
Use an independent review pass to confirm the result, inspect the diff or artifact, and reject shortcut work.
 
Boundaries:
Do not fabricate citations
Do not over-quote sources
Do not hide uncertainty
 
Stop rule:
Stop when every claim is sourced and the brief separates facts, assumptions, and recommendations.
Maximum iterations: 3
 
Budget:
Example only: stop before exceeding the agreed per-run token budget.
 
Human approval:
Required before merge, deploy, delete, purchase, or external communication.
 
Fallback:
If sources conflict or cannot be verified, present the uncertainty rather than resolving it arbitrarily.
 
Loop Validation Log:
- Hypothesis: This research summary loop can produce a safer result if the scope stays narrow, validation is explicit, and a checker can reject shortcut work.
- Smallest useful run: Run one bounded pass on the newest relevant signal before expanding scope or adding a schedule.
- Expected evidence: Record the original signal, checks run, final result, changed files or artifacts, and any checker rejection.
- Actual evidence: [fill in after the run]
- Passed? [yes / no / partial]
- Feedback: After the run, note what the loop learned, what failed, and what should change before the next pass.
- Next step: [stop / adjust the loop / run the next pass]
 
Do not delete tests, bypass checks, or modify unrelated files just to satisfy the validation condition. If blocked, stop and summarize the blocker, attempted fixes, and recommended next action.

Failure modes to watch

Fabricated citations
Over-quoting sources
Hidden uncertainty
Unsourced claims
Worked scenario review · maintained by TianMingAI · 2026-07-21

Review receipt

This is a bounded review exercise for the template, not a claim about a production deployment.

Scenario

A maintainer needs a current answer on safe agent stop rules across official product documents and two new research preprints.

Baseline evidence

The researcher records the exact question, search date, inclusion rule, primary URLs, publication status, and which claims come from product documentation versus unreviewed preprints.

Validation result

The summary answers the question with claim-level links, marks inferences and uncertainty, states each study's limits, and separates verified facts from recommendations for this site.

Shortcut rejected

Copying search snippets, citing an aggregator, or presenting a recent preprint as settled industry consensus is rejected.

Human gate

An editor checks that each consequential claim is supported by the linked source and decides whether the evidence is mature enough to guide public advice.

Final decisionPass

Loop Engineering FAQ

Every factual claim must carry a source note, and fabricating citations is an explicit forbidden action. Unverifiable claims are flagged as uncertain.