The Stanford STORM Method's core idea can be implemented in Claude with 4 prompts to achieve PhD-level research in minutes.

Made with Rinto — analyse your own content free

What STORM Method Is

The STORM method, developed by Stanford, offers a structured approach to in-depth research.

Limitations of Single-Prompt Research

Single prompts typically yield only surface-level information, missing diverse expert insights.

Prompt 1: Multi-Perspective Scan

The first prompt initiates a multi-perspective scan, generating insights from five simulated experts.

Prompt 2: Contradiction Map

The second prompt creates a contradiction map by identifying areas of agreement and conflict among the expert perspectives.

Contradiction Map Prompt

This prompt identifies conflicts and agreements among the five expert views, revealing deeper understanding.

Contradictions reveal real understanding

Identifying where the five voices disagree is crucial for moving beyond surface-level understanding to real expertise.

Prompt 3: Synthesis

The third prompt synthesizes all gathered information into a comprehensive research briefing.

Research Briefing Synthesis Prompt

This prompt synthesizes all information from the perspectives and contradiction map into a research briefing.

Output is comprehensive briefing

The output is a briefing no single expert could write, accounting for all angles, contradictions, reliability, and specific actions.

90 seconds for synthesis

This comprehensive synthesis can be achieved in just 90 seconds.

Prompt 4: Peer Review

The fourth prompt addresses a known weakness of STORM by having Claude self-critique its own research briefing.

STORM's weakness is self-critique

Stanford researchers identified self-critique, source bias, and fact misassociation as a known weakness of the STORM system.

Self-Critique Peer Review Prompt

This prompt addresses STORM's weakness by making Claude evaluate its own research briefing for reliability and bias.

Output is honest self-assessment

The output provides an honest assessment of research, including strong/weak claims, biases, and missing angles.

60 seconds for peer review

This self-critique peer review process can be completed in 60 seconds.

The 5-Minute Workflow

This section outlines the precise 5-minute workflow for implementing the four prompts.

Minute 1: Prompt 1

Execute Prompt 1 during the first minute to obtain five expert views.

Minutes 2-3: Prompt 2

Execute Prompt 2 during minutes 2 to 3 to generate a contradiction map.

Minutes 3-4: Prompt 3

Execute Prompt 3 during minutes 3 to 4 to produce a research briefing.

Minute 5: Prompt 4

Execute Prompt 4 during minute 5 to determine the reliability of findings.

Total time: 5 minutes

The complete workflow from start to finish takes a total of 5 minutes.

Output is multi-perspective briefing

The workflow yields a multi-perspective briefing with contradiction analysis, synthesis, specific action, and reliability score.

Human vs AI research time

A PhD student takes 40-60 hours for tasks that the 5-minute AI workflow achieves, due to human processing time for complex analysis.

Task	Human (hours)	AI (minutes)
Research Briefing	40 to 60	5

Applications of the Method

The STORM method can be applied in seven diverse ways, from writing reports to making business decisions.

Target Audience and Value

This method is designed for individuals who desire quick, deep understanding of complex topics.

The Uncomfortable Truth

Despite its availability and effectiveness, the Stanford method remains largely unused, creating a temporary competitive advantage.

▸ 10 Expand

APEX

Achieving PhD-level research with Claude in minutes

The Stanford STORM Method's core idea can be implemented in Claude with 4 prompts to achieve PhD-level research in minutes.

Made with Rinto — analyse your own content free

▸ 5 Expand

SECT

What STORM Method Is

The STORM method, developed by Stanford, offers a structured approach to in-depth research.

▸ 1 Expand

SUP

STORM acronym meaning

STORM stands for Synthesis of Topic Outlines through Retrieval and Multi perspective Question Asking.

EVID

Published by Stanford OVAL Lab

The method was published at NAACL 2024 by the Stanford OVAL Lab.

▸ 1 Expand

EVID

Produced 25% more organized articles

In peer-reviewed testing, STORM produced articles 25 percent more organized than the next best method.

DATA

25% more organized articles

STORM produced articles 25 percent more organized.

SUP

Live version available online

A free live version of STORM is available online at storm.genie.stanford.edu without sign-up.

SUP

Full code is open source

The full code is available at github.com/stanford-oval/storm under an MIT license.

INSG

Stanford method runnable in Claude

The core thinking of the Stanford method can be replicated within Claude using four copy-paste prompts.

▸ 5 Expand

SECT

Limitations of Single-Prompt Research

Single prompts typically yield only surface-level information, missing diverse expert insights.

SUP

Single prompts yield majority view

Asking Claude 'tell me about X' typically provides only the majority or surface-level view.

▸ 1 Expand

JUST

Diverse perspectives needed for depth

A PhD student asks five different perspectives to gain comprehensive understanding, unlike a single question.

EVID

Five voices see different things

Practitioners, academics, skeptics, economists, and historians each offer unique insights into a topic.

▸ 2 Expand

EVID

Multi-perspective articles are superior

Stanford's paper showed articles built from multiple perspectives were 25 percent more organized and 10 percent broader in coverage.

DATA

25% more organized articles

Articles from multiple perspectives were 25 percent more organized.

DATA

10% broader coverage

Articles from multiple perspectives were 10 percent broader in coverage.

INSG

Multi-perspective questioning prevents blind spots

Multi-perspective questioning captures blind spots that single-prompt research invariably misses.

▸ 1 Expand

SUP

STORM compresses research time

The STORM method significantly compresses the 40 to 60 hours typically required for PhD-level human reading.

DATA

PhD research takes 40-60 hours

A PhD level research job traditionally takes 40 to 60 hours of human reading.

▸ 3 Expand

SECT

Prompt 1: Multi-Perspective Scan

The first prompt initiates a multi-perspective scan, generating insights from five simulated experts.

▸ 2 Expand

FRMW

Multi-Perspective Scan Prompt

This prompt generates five expert perspectives on a given topic, forming the core of the method.

1Define topic in prompt line 1→2Simulate 5 expert perspectives

STEP

Define topic in prompt line 1

Replace '[YOUR TOPIC]' in the first line of the prompt with the desired research subject.

▸ 1 Expand

STEP

Simulate 5 expert perspectives

Simulate perspectives for The Practitioner, The Academic, The Skeptic, The Economist, and The Historian.

▸ 3 Expand

CHKL

For each perspective, provide specific details

Each perspective must include its core position in 2 sentences, strongest supporting evidence, and unique insight.

1Core position (2 sentences)→2Strongest supporting evidence→3One unique thing to tell

STEP

Core position (2 sentences)

State the expert's core position in two sentences.

STEP

Strongest supporting evidence

Provide the strongest evidence supporting their specific view.

STEP

One unique thing to tell

Identify the one unique insight they would share that no other perspective would.

EVID

Output provides diverse topic reads

The prompt output offers five distinct interpretations of the topic, revealing insights specific to each perspective.

DATA

60 seconds of work

This multi-perspective scan takes only 60 seconds of work.

▸ 2 Expand

SECT

Prompt 2: Contradiction Map

The second prompt creates a contradiction map by identifying areas of agreement and conflict among the expert perspectives.

▸ 1 Expand

FRMW

Contradiction Map Prompt

This prompt identifies conflicts and agreements among the five expert views, revealing deeper understanding.

▸ 5 Expand

CHKL

Map contradictions from perspectives

The prompt asks for direct contradictions, strongest/weakest evidence, a resolving question, common agreements, and unaddressed topics.

1List direct contradictions→2Identify strongest/weakest evidence with reasons→3Formulate a question to resolve biggest contradiction→4List what every perspective agrees on→5Identify topics none addressed (blind spot)

STEP

List direct contradictions

List each conflict between two or more perspectives with specific clashing claims.

STEP

Identify strongest/weakest evidence with reasons

Determine which perspective has the strongest and weakest evidence, explaining why.

STEP

Formulate a question to resolve biggest contradiction

Pose the one question that, if answered, would resolve the most significant contradiction.

STEP

List what every perspective agrees on

Identify topics or claims that every expert perspective agrees upon, indicating likely truth.

STEP

Identify topics none addressed (blind spot)

Pinpoint any topic that none of the perspectives addressed, indicating a potential blind spot in the field.

INSG

Contradictions reveal real understanding

Identifying where the five voices disagree is crucial for moving beyond surface-level understanding to real expertise.

▸ 3 Expand

SECT

Prompt 3: Synthesis

The third prompt synthesizes all gathered information into a comprehensive research briefing.

▸ 1 Expand

FRMW

Research Briefing Synthesis Prompt

This prompt synthesizes all information from the perspectives and contradiction map into a research briefing.

▸ 5 Expand

CHKL

Synthesize into a research briefing

The briefing requires a one-paragraph summary, five key findings, a hidden connection, an actionable insight, and a frontier question.

1One-paragraph CEO summary with nuance→2Five key findings ranked by reliability→3One non-obvious hidden connection→4One actionable insight for a specific role→5One frontier question to change understanding

STEP

One-paragraph CEO summary with nuance

Explain the topic as if briefing a CEO who needs nuance in 60 seconds.

STEP

Five key findings ranked by reliability

List the five most important findings, ranked by reliability, noting supporting and challenging perspectives.

STEP

One non-obvious hidden connection

Identify one non-obvious link between findings that only appears when all five perspectives are considered.

STEP

One actionable insight for a specific role

Provide a specific, actionable insight based on all evidence for someone in a defined role.

STEP

One frontier question to change understanding

Pose the one question that, if answered, would fundamentally change understanding of the topic.

EVID

Output is comprehensive briefing

The output is a briefing no single expert could write, accounting for all angles, contradictions, reliability, and specific actions.

DATA

90 seconds for synthesis

This comprehensive synthesis can be achieved in just 90 seconds.

▸ 4 Expand

SECT

Prompt 4: Peer Review

The fourth prompt addresses a known weakness of STORM by having Claude self-critique its own research briefing.

SUP

STORM's weakness is self-critique

Stanford researchers identified self-critique, source bias, and fact misassociation as a known weakness of the STORM system.

▸ 1 Expand

FRMW

Self-Critique Peer Review Prompt

This prompt addresses STORM's weakness by making Claude evaluate its own research briefing for reliability and bias.

▸ 5 Expand

CHKL

Peer review your research briefing

The prompt asks for confidence scores, weakest link identification, bias check, missing perspectives, and an overall grade with fixes.

1Rate 5 key findings with confidence scores→2Identify weakest claim and info needed to verify→3Check for overrepresented perspectives or bias→4Suggest a 6th missing perspective→5Assign overall Stanford professor grade and suggest fixes

STEP

Rate 5 key findings with confidence scores

Rate each of the 5 key findings on a 1 to 10 reliability scale and explain each score.

STEP

Identify weakest claim and info needed to verify

Identify the least confident claim and specify information needed to verify it.

STEP

Check for overrepresented perspectives or bias

Assess if any perspective might be overrepresented in the synthesis or if one voice dominated.

STEP

Suggest a 6th missing perspective

Propose if a sixth angle should have been included that would change the conclusions.

STEP

Assign overall Stanford professor grade and suggest fixes

Provide an overall grade a Stanford professor would give and suggest improvements.

EVID

Output is honest self-assessment

The output provides an honest assessment of research, including strong/weak claims, biases, and missing angles.

DATA

60 seconds for peer review

This self-critique peer review process can be completed in 60 seconds.

▸ 7 Expand

SECT

The 5-Minute Workflow

This section outlines the precise 5-minute workflow for implementing the four prompts.

STEP

Minute 1: Prompt 1

Execute Prompt 1 during the first minute to obtain five expert views.

STEP

Minutes 2-3: Prompt 2

Execute Prompt 2 during minutes 2 to 3 to generate a contradiction map.

STEP

Minutes 3-4: Prompt 3

Execute Prompt 3 during minutes 3 to 4 to produce a research briefing.

STEP

Minute 5: Prompt 4

Execute Prompt 4 during minute 5 to determine the reliability of findings.

DATA

Total time: 5 minutes

The complete workflow from start to finish takes a total of 5 minutes.

EVID

Output is multi-perspective briefing

The workflow yields a multi-perspective briefing with contradiction analysis, synthesis, specific action, and reliability score.

▸ 1 Expand

CMPR

Human vs AI research time

A PhD student takes 40-60 hours for tasks that the 5-minute AI workflow achieves, due to human processing time for complex analysis.

Task	Human (hours)	AI (minutes)
Research Briefing	40 to 60	5

JUST

Human brain limits

Reading from 5 angles, mapping contradictions, synthesizing, and self-critiquing is a 40-hour job for one human brain.

▸ 7 Expand

SECT

Applications of the Method

The STORM method can be applied in seven diverse ways, from writing reports to making business decisions.

TIP

Use before writing articles/reports

Run the 4 prompts before writing any article or report to cover angles nobody else considered.

TIP

Use before major business decisions

Get all 5 perspectives before a major business decision to understand practicalities, risks, and financial incentives.

TIP

Use before job interviews

Research a company from 5 angles in 5 minutes before an interview to gain insider language and sharp questions.

TIP

Use before investing

Research investment topics with bull case, bear case, historical parallels, and incentive maps to identify actual risks.

TIP

Use before learning a new skill

Map a new skill from 5 angles to learn what to prioritize and what is overhyped, skipping the noise.

TIP

Use before a negotiation

Research the other side from 5 perspectives to understand their incentives, weaknesses, and historical behavior for a structural advantage.

TIP

Use before any presentation

Run STORM on your topic before a presentation to proactively answer objections and ensure effortless Q&A.

▸ 1 Expand

SECT

Target Audience and Value

This method is designed for individuals who desire quick, deep understanding of complex topics.

SUP

Method is for those seeking quick, deep understanding

This method is for individuals who desire quick, deep understanding of topics with sources, like a Stanford grad student, without the tuition cost.

▸ 4 Expand

SECT

The Uncomfortable Truth

Despite its availability and effectiveness, the Stanford method remains largely unused, creating a temporary competitive advantage.

INSG

Method is underutilized despite availability

The Stanford method, published, peer-reviewed, open-source, and free, is currently underutilized by most people.

▸ 2 Expand

INSG

Early adopters gain significant advantage

People who learn to research properly with AI now will significantly outperform others by running multi-perspective workflows.

DATA

18-month window

There is an 18-month window where those using this method will out-think others.

JUST

Advantage comes from running structured workflow

The advantage comes from employing a structured workflow of 5 perspectives, contradiction mapping, synthesis, and peer review.

INSG

Edge will diminish as workflow becomes standard

This competitive edge will disappear in about 18 months as this type of workflow becomes integrated into every tool.

DCSN

Start using the prompts today

Users are urged to pick a research topic, open Claude, and paste Prompt 1 to immediately gain superior knowledge.