Articulate your research gap and stress-test it

Writes the concluding paragraph of a literature review that names the gap your study fills, then stress-tests it with the objections a sceptical reviewer would raise.

PLPromptByte Library@promptbytePublished Jul 29

TextResearch #grant writing #literature review #research #research planning

Version 1 of 1 · published Jul 29, 2026Version 1 · only version

Example output

See all results

Anthropic · Claude Opus 5 PLPromptByte Library Version 1

Prompt

Version 1 · 2 variables · 2 required

Fill in the values below — the customized prompt updates as you type. marks a required value.

Research topic{{research_topic}}

The topic of the literature review whose conclusion you are writing.

What the literature shows{{literature_summary}}

Your own synthesis: what the studies converge on, where they disagree, and what none of them has done.

Fill in Research topic, What the literature shows to copy the customized prompt.

Resultsfor version 1

All models Claude Opus 51

Version 1 · only version

Claude Opus 5 result by PromptByte Library
Anthropic · Claude Opus 5 PLPromptByte Library (@promptbyte)Version 1Published Jul 29
Compare
Taken together, the studies reviewed above converge on three points: structured peer feedback raises the quality of code students submit in the revision that follows, students trust feedback more when rubric criteria are visible at the moment of writing, and participation drops once feedback is ungraded. They diverge on whether the benefit survives beyond the assignment in which feedback was given, and none follows the same cohort into a later course. That is the gap this study addresses: whether peer feedback in online programming courses produces durable improvement in code quality, or only…
Community submittedFull output
Settings: Unknown
Open result

Showing all 1 public result on version 1.

Usage notes

Paste your own synthesis of the literature — what the studies agree on, where they diverge, what none of them did. The paragraph it writes is only as good as that input, and the prompt deliberately blocks it from inventing supporting studies to prop up a thin gap.

The two sections underneath are the reason to use this rather than writing the paragraph yourself. The objections section rehearses the reviewer comment you are most likely to get ("this has already been shown") while you can still narrow the claim. The unsupported-claims section catches the quiet inflation that creeps into gap statements: the intensifier with no number behind it, the assertion about a field's motives, the "widely used" that no source establishes.

A gap that survives both sections is one you can defend in a proposal. A gap that collapses under them is worth finding out about now rather than in review.

Rewrite the paragraph in your own voice before it goes anywhere — grant prose written by a model reads like grant prose written by a model.

Attribution: adapted from https://github.com/BevalZ/awesome-prompt-for-academic by BevalZ, licensed MIT. Source file: https://github.com/BevalZ/awesome-prompt-for-academic/blob/main/Prompts/EN/general.md

Articulate your research gap and stress-test it

Example output

Prompt

Resultsfor version 1

Something wrong with this prompt?

Plan a point-by-point response to manuscript reviewers

Turn study findings into a research-poster content plan

Map conflicting terminology across research disciplines

Audit in-text citations against the reference list

Create a repeatable observational data-collection protocol

Draft a qualitative codebook from anonymized excerpts

Discussion 0

Example output

Prompt

Resultsfor version 1

Something wrong with this prompt?

Related prompts

Plan a point-by-point response to manuscript reviewers

Turn study findings into a research-poster content plan

Map conflicting terminology across research disciplines

Audit in-text citations against the reference list

Create a repeatable observational data-collection protocol

Draft a qualitative codebook from anonymized excerpts

Discussion 0