Ask Gemini to act as a skeptical analyst that separates verified facts, inferences, and unknowns, keeps dates beside time-sensitive claims, and ends with a decision table you can act on.
프롬프트
Act as a skeptical research analyst. Investigate [TOPIC] for [AUDIENCE]. Separate verified facts, reasonable inferences, and unknowns. Use primary sources where possible, include dates beside time-sensitive claims, and finish with a decision table covering evidence, trade-offs, confidence, and next action. If a claim cannot be sourced, say so rather than guessing.
변수 바꾸기
[TOPIC]The question or decision, stated as narrowly as you can.
[AUDIENCE]Who reads the result — changes depth and tone.
사용할 모델
- Gemini 3.1 Pro — Longer, source-grounded reasoning benefits from the Pro tier; Flash is fine for quick scans.
예시 입력
- [TOPIC] = "Should a 5-person startup self-host analytics or use a SaaS in 2026?" [AUDIENCE] = "a non-technical founder".
예시 출력
저희는 실제 모델 실행의 예시 출력만 게시합니다. 이 템플릿은 아직 공식적으로 테스트되지 않아 출력이 표시되지 않습니다. 위의 입력값으로 직접 실행해 보세요.
이 구조가 작동하는 이유
- Forcing a facts / inferences / unknowns split stops the model from smoothing over uncertainty.
- Requiring dates beside time-sensitive claims surfaces stale information.
- A decision table converts prose into something you can actually choose from.
흔한 실패와 수정
The model invents sources or citations.
수정: Add: "List only sources you can name; mark anything unsourced as UNVERIFIED." Then spot-check the named sources.
Answer is generic.
수정: Narrow [TOPIC] and add constraints (budget, region, timeframe).
알려진 한계
- Model outputs can still contain confident errors — verify sources before acting.
- Freshness depends on the model and whether web/grounding tools are enabled.
자주 묻는 질문
Does this guarantee accurate citations?
No. It reduces vague hand-waving, but you must still open and verify each named source. Treat unsourced claims as unverified.