35 Best NotebookLM Prompts (2026)

Using only the sources in this notebook, write a briefing document that gives me a full working understanding of the material. Cover: the main topics, the key facts and figures, the most important arguments or findings, and any decisions or recommendations. Cite the specific source and page or section for every claim. Where sources disagree, say so. If something I'd expect to be covered is missing from the sources, list it under "Not covered in these sources" rather than filling it in from general knowledge.

Summarize all sources in this notebook into a one-page executive summary for a reader who has not read any of them. Lead with a two-sentence bottom line, then the 5-7 most important points as bullets, then any risks, open questions, or caveats the sources raise. Keep it under 300 words. Cite the source for each point. Do not include anything that is not supported by the sources.

Build a glossary of the key terms, acronyms, and named concepts used across these sources. For each entry give: the term, a plain-English definition as the sources use it, and the source and section where it's defined or first used. Order them alphabetically. Only include terms that actually appear in the sources, and if a term is used but never clearly defined, note that instead of inventing a definition.

Build a chronological timeline of the events, milestones, or developments described in these sources. For each entry give the date (or best available time reference), what happened, and a citation to the source and section. If sources give conflicting dates, show both and flag the conflict. If a date is only approximate or implied, mark it as such. Present as a dated list from earliest to latest.

Create a table of contents that maps everything in this notebook. For each source, list its title and the main topics or sections it contains, with a one-line description of each. Then add a short cross-reference note pointing out which sources cover overlapping topics. Cite each source by name. The goal is a map I can use to find where any subject is discussed across all my sources.

Produce a hierarchical, mind-map-style outline of everything covered in these sources. Start from the central theme, branch into the main topics, then into sub-topics and key supporting points, going 3-4 levels deep. Keep each node short. Add a citation to the source and section on each leaf-level point. Only include branches the sources actually support. This is a structural map, so favor clarity of hierarchy over prose.

Create a study guide from these sources for an upcoming exam on [subject/unit]. Include: the core concepts I must know, key definitions, important examples, and the relationships between ideas. For each concept, note the source and section so I can go back to the original. Add a short "most likely to be tested" list at the end based on what the sources emphasize most. Only use the sources — flag any topic on [subject] that the sources don't cover so I know to study it elsewhere.

Generate 20 flashcards from these sources covering the most important facts, definitions, and concepts. Format each as "Front:" (a question or term) and "Back:" (the answer, kept concise). Cite the source and section on the back of each card. Make the questions test understanding, not just recall, where the material allows. Base every card strictly on the sources, and don't create cards for topics the sources don't cover.

Write a 10-question practice quiz from these sources at [difficulty level]. Mix multiple-choice and short-answer questions covering the most important ideas. Make the wrong options plausible, not obvious. After all the questions, give a separate answer key that explains why each answer is correct and cites the source and section for the key fact. Keep questions and answers clearly separated so I can test myself first. Only draw questions from what the sources actually say.

Explain [concept] from these sources as if teaching it to someone with no background, using the Feynman technique: plain language, a concrete analogy, and no jargon unless you define it on first use. Then point out the one or two parts people most commonly misunderstand. Ground the explanation in the sources and cite the section you're drawing from. If the sources only partly explain the concept, say what's missing rather than filling the gap.

I'm going to answer questions on this material. First, based on the sources, list the concepts that are most conceptually difficult or most commonly confused, and explain why each is tricky. Then give me 5 diagnostic questions targeting exactly those weak spots, with a cited answer key. Focus on the areas where understanding tends to break down, not the easy recall facts. Use only the sources and cite the section for each answer.

Write 6 exam-style questions on this material in the style of [exam type, e.g. short essay / structured / problem-based]. Match the depth and phrasing a real exam would use for [subject] at [level]. For each question, provide a model answer and a brief marking guide showing what a full-mark response must include, citing the source and section for each key point. Base everything on the sources and flag any exam topic the sources don't cover.

Across all sources in this notebook, on the topic of [topic], separate the points where the sources agree from the points where they disagree. For each area of consensus, list which sources support it and cite them. For each disagreement, state each position, which source holds it, and the reason for the difference (different data, definitions, timeframes, or assumptions). Don't smooth over conflicts. Present as two sections: "Consensus" and "Disagreement", with a citation on every claim.

Build a literature synthesis table from the sources in this notebook. One row per source. Columns: source (title/author/year if available), research question or aim, method or approach, key findings, and stated limitations. Fill each cell only from the source itself, and write "not stated" where the source doesn't say. After the table, add a 3-4 sentence synthesis of what the body of work collectively shows. Cite by source name in each cell.

Scan all sources in this notebook and find any contradictions or inconsistencies between them — conflicting figures, dates, claims, or conclusions. For each one, quote the conflicting statements, name the sources and sections they come from, and note whether the conflict is a genuine disagreement or likely a difference in definition, scope, or timing. Don't invent contradictions; only report ones actually present in the sources. If you find none, say so.

Based only on these sources, identify the gaps and open questions on [topic]. Cover: questions the sources raise but don't answer, areas where the evidence is thin or preliminary, and topics you'd expect to be addressed but aren't. For each gap, cite the source context that reveals it. Rank the gaps by how important they seem for understanding the topic. Be explicit that these are gaps in the provided sources, not necessarily in the wider field.

Compare the methodologies used across the studies or reports in this notebook. For each source, summarize its approach, sample or data, and analysis method, then compare their strengths and weaknesses against each other. Note where a methodological difference could explain differing results. Cite the source and section for each methodological detail. Where a source doesn't describe its method fully, say so rather than inferring it.

Answer this specific question using only the sources in this notebook: "[your question]". Give a direct answer first, then the supporting evidence, quoting the exact lines and citing the source and section for each. If the sources only partially answer it, say what they do and don't establish. If they don't answer it at all, say so plainly instead of guessing. If sources give different answers, present each with its source.

Focus on the 3-4 most important ideas in these sources and go deep on each, in this order: why it matters, how it works, and one concrete example from the sources. Explain any jargon in plain terms. Spend the most time on [key topic]. Keep it engaging but accurate — don't oversimplify the hard parts, and if the sources are uncertain about something, say so on air rather than glossing over it.

This is for a busy executive with five minutes. Focus only on the bottom line: what the sources conclude, why it matters for a decision-maker, the key numbers, and the main risks or trade-offs. Skip background and history. Lead with the single most important takeaway. Keep it punchy and concrete, and flag clearly if the sources leave an important question unanswered.

Have the two hosts debate the central question in these sources: [the question]. One host argues the strongest case for each side using only evidence found in the sources. Give each side a fair hearing, cite the reasoning back to what the sources actually say, and don't let either host win by strawmanning. End by having them agree on the points that aren't really in dispute and naming what remains genuinely contested.

Critically evaluate these sources rather than just summarizing them. Focus on: how strong the evidence is, what assumptions the arguments rest on, where the reasoning is weak or the claims outrun the data, and what a skeptical expert would push back on. Be fair — note the genuine strengths too. Base every critique on what's actually in the sources, and distinguish a real flaw from a point the sources simply don't address.

Make this a beginner-friendly explainer. Assume the viewer knows nothing about [topic]. Build understanding step by step: start with the big-picture "what and why", then the key parts, then how they fit together, using one clear example from the sources for each. Define every term on first use and use visuals to show relationships, not just decorate. Keep the pace steady and don't skip the reasoning between steps.

Generate a Deep Dive Audio Overview, and be ready for me to interrupt with questions in Interactive mode. In the focus, prime the hosts to expect follow-ups on [topic] and to answer them from the sources with a citation, and to say clearly when a question goes beyond what the sources cover. When I ask, give a direct, source-grounded answer, then return smoothly to the overview.

Write a 700-word blog post on [angle] using only these sources. Open with a concrete hook, deliver the key points in short sections with clear subheadings, and close with a practical takeaway. Keep the tone [tone, e.g. plain and helpful]. Every factual claim must come from the sources — add a citation to the source and section after each one so I can verify before publishing. Don't add facts, stats, or examples that aren't in the sources; flag anywhere the post would be stronger with a source I haven't provided.

Turn the key insight from [source or topic] into a LinkedIn post of about 150 words. Start with a strong one-line hook, share 2-3 concrete points from the source, and end with a question that invites discussion. Keep it conversational and free of buzzwords. Only use what's in the source — no invented statistics or claims. After the post, note which source and section each point came from so I can double-check.

Draft a newsletter issue for [audience] based on these sources. Structure: a short intro on why this matters now, 3 main sections each with a key takeaway and a supporting detail, and a "what to do with this" closer. Keep paragraphs short and scannable. Cite the source and section for each factual point. Use only the sources — if a section feels thin, tell me what additional source would fill it rather than padding with generalities.

Create an FAQ page from these sources. Generate the 8-10 questions a real reader would most likely ask about [topic], then answer each in 2-4 sentences using only the sources, citing the source and section. Phrase questions the way people actually ask them. If a likely question isn't answered by the sources, list it separately under "Questions the sources don't answer" so I can address it another way.

Outline a 10-slide presentation on [topic] from these sources for [audience]. For each slide give a headline and 3-4 bullet points, and note the source and section behind any fact or figure. Structure: title, the problem or context, 3-4 key findings each on its own slide, implications, and next steps. Keep bullets tight and presentation-ready. Add a final "Sources" slide listing every source cited. Use only the material in the notebook.

Write a short email summarizing these sources for [recipient, e.g. my manager]. Keep it under 200 words: a one-line subject, a two-sentence summary, the 3-4 points they most need to know as bullets, and a clear ask or next step if there is one. Professional and concise. Base it only on the sources, and if there's an important open question, include it so they're not surprised later.

I have a meeting about [topic]. Using the documents in this notebook, prepare a one-page prep briefing. Cover: the current status, the key facts and numbers I need at hand, decisions still outstanding, and 5 smart questions I should raise. Cite the source and section for every fact so I can speak with confidence. Flag anything the documents leave unclear or unresolved. Keep it to bullets I can skim in two minutes.

Go through these documents and extract every decision that was made. For each, give: the decision, who made it (if stated), the date or meeting it came from, the stated rationale, and the source and section. Quote the exact wording where the decision is recorded so I can verify it. List them in chronological order. Note any decision that appears to have been reversed or superseded later, and don't infer decisions that aren't clearly stated.

From these documents, extract every action item, task, or commitment. For each, list the task, the owner, the due date, and the source and section it came from. Quote the line each one is based on. Flag any action that's missing an owner or a date. Do not add tasks that aren't in the documents. End with the 3 items that look most urgent or highest-risk based on what the sources say.

Using the reports and documents in this notebook, synthesize a competitive picture of [market or set of competitors]. For each competitor covered, pull: positioning, strengths, weaknesses, and any notable moves, citing the source and section. Build it as a comparison table, then add a short synthesis of where the sources suggest the market is heading. Only use what the sources contain — mark any field as "not covered in sources" rather than filling it from general knowledge.

Turn these documents into an onboarding guide for a new hire on [team/role]. Cover: what the team does, the key processes and tools, important terms and acronyms, who owns what (if stated), and where to find things. Write it so someone on day one can follow it. Cite the source and section for each point so they can go to the original. List anything a new hire would need that the documents don't cover, so we know what to write up next.