DRACO Research Prompt Generator
Transform vague research requests into prompts that maximise deep research agent performance, based on the DRACO benchmark methodology.
Core Principle: The Three Pillars
Every generated prompt MUST satisfy all three criteria simultaneously:
1. OBJECTIVITY
Clear, measurable success criteria where multiple experts would converge on what constitutes a correct answer.
Indicators of objectivity:
- Specific metrics, dates, or verifiable facts
- Named authoritative sources
- Documented information vs. opinions
- Deterministic outcomes
Red flags (make subjective):
- "Best", "should", "compelling", "interesting"
- Speculative future predictions
- Undefined quality judgments
2. BOUNDED/CONSTRAINED
Natural limits preventing endless expansion. Clear point where a complete answer has been given.
Good constraints:
- Specific number limits with objective ranking metrics ("top 5 by AUM", "3 most-cited papers")
- Time constraints ("2022–2025", "since Q3 2024")
- Geographic/domain limits ("in the EU", "for e-commerce")
- Named entities (not "top approaches" but "LoRA, full fine-tuning, and instruction tuning")
Pseudo-constraints to AVOID:
- Ungrounded "Top N" without objective metric ("top 5 challenges" — subjective)
- "Cite at least N sources" (different experts choose different sources)
- "Multiple studies" without naming which ones
3. CHALLENGING
Difficulty from complexity or synthesis, NOT from volume or tedium.
Good challenge sources:
- Synthesis across multiple named sources
- Multi-step reasoning or analysis
- Finding specific hard-to-locate information
- Domain expertise requirements
Bad (tedious, not challenging):
- Listing many items without analysis
- Kitchen-sink queries with 8+ deliverables
- Simple factual recall
The Six Augmentation Dimensions
Apply systematically to transform vague queries:
CONTEXT Dimensions
| Dimension | Action | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Persona | Add professional role context | "As a buy-side analyst conducting due diligence..." |
| Output | Specify deliverable format | "financial analysis research report", "comparative brief" |
| Source | Add retrieval specificity | "Pull from SEC proxy statements", "based on WHO GLASS reports" |
SCOPE Dimensions
| Dimension | Action | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Temporal | Expand/bound time scope | "NVIDIA financials" → "NVIDIA financials 2022–2025" |
| Cross-entity | Add comparative requirements | "CEO compensation at Google" → "CEO compensation at Google, Meta, and Apple" |
| Geography | Expand/specify geographic scope | "AI landscape" → "global AI landscape, focusing on US and China" |
Prompt Generation Workflow
Step 1: Parse the Request
Identify:
- Core research question
- Implicit constraints (if any)
- Domain/subject area
- Apparent depth requirement
Step 2: Apply Augmentation Checklist
For each dimension, determine if augmentation is needed:
□ PERSONA: Does specifying a professional role add clarity?
□ OUTPUT: Is the expected deliverable format clear?
□ SOURCE: Should specific authoritative sources be named?
□ TEMPORAL: Is timeframe bounded appropriately?
□ CROSS-ENTITY: Would comparison improve depth?
□ GEOGRAPHY: Is geographic scope clear and appropriate?
Step 3: Validate Three Pillars
Before finalising, verify:
□ OBJECTIVITY: Would two experts agree on what counts as correct?
□ BOUNDED: Is there a clear stopping point? Are "Top N" grounded?
□ CHALLENGE: Does difficulty come from synthesis, not volume?
□ DELIVERABLES: 3–5 focused items maximum, not kitchen-sink
Step 4: Structure the Output
Organise the prompt following this pattern:
[PERSONA CONTEXT if applicable]
[CORE RESEARCH QUESTION with all constraints]
[SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS numbered 1–4, maximum 5]
[SOURCE SPECIFICITY — named authoritative sources]
[OUTPUT SPECIFICATION — format, structure expectations]
Output Format
Present generated prompts in a clean, copy-ready format:
## Generated Research Prompt
[The optimised prompt]
---
### Augmentations Applied
- [List which dimensions were added]
### Validation Notes
- Objectivity: [How verified]
- Boundedness: [Constraints applied]
- Challenge: [Source of complexity]
Anti-Patterns to Avoid
| ❌ Avoid | Why | ✓ Instead |
|---|---|---|
| "Top 5 challenges" | Subjective ranking | "Top 5 challenges by regulatory citation frequency" |
| "Cite at least 3 studies" | Non-deterministic | "Compare findings from [Study A] and [Study B]" |
| "Analyse all aspects of X" | Unbounded | "Analyse [specific aspect 1], [aspect 2], [aspect 3]" |
| "What's the best approach" | Subjective | "Compare approaches A, B, C on metrics X, Y, Z" |
| Lists of 8+ deliverables | Volume, not challenge | Focus on 3–5 core elements |
| "Recent research shows" | Vague temporality | "Research published 2023–2025 shows" |
Example Transformations
Before: "Research private credit funds"
After: "Identify the top 5 private credit funds by AUM in North America as of Q4 2025. For each fund, document: (1) minimum investment threshold, (2) management fee structure, (3) target IRR range, and (4) primary sector focus. Source data from fund prospectuses, Preqin, and SEC filings."
Before: "How is AI affecting healthcare?"
After: "Compare how computer vision systems have been adapted for automated breast cancer detection in mammography across FDA-cleared products (2020–2025). Report: (1) sensitivity/specificity thresholds required by FDA and EU MDR, (2) clinical trial results from at least 3 named trials, (3) current deployment scale in US hospital systems. Prioritise sources: FDA 510(k) clearance documents, peer-reviewed clinical validation studies, and manufacturer regulatory submissions."
See references/transformation-examples.md for more domain-specific examples.
See references/domain-patterns.md for domain-specific augmentation templates.
See references/validation-checklist.md for the full quality validation checklist.