22 Kimi Prompts for Research & Analysis (2026)

Turn on Deep Research. Produce a thorough, cited report on [TOPIC] as of [MONTH YEAR]. Structure it as: background, current state, key debates, and what's likely next. Run enough searches to cover the topic from multiple angles, prefer recent primary sources over secondary write-ups, and cite every claim with a link and its publication date. End with a short "confidence and gaps" section noting what you couldn't verify.

Turn on Deep Research. Map the current landscape of [MARKET / INDUSTRY] as of [MONTH YEAR]. Cover the main players and their positioning, recent funding or M&A, pricing norms, and where the market is heading. Prefer recent primary sources — company filings, official announcements, and reputable analysts — and cite every fact with a link and date. Separate what's confirmed from what's still speculation.

Turn on Deep Research. Draft a literature review on [RESEARCH QUESTION]. Find the most important recent studies, reports, and credible analyses, group them by theme or school of thought, and trace how the thinking has evolved. Prefer primary studies over commentary, cite every source with a link and date, note methodological disagreements, and end with the open questions where the field needs more work.

Turn on Deep Research. I need a well-sourced answer to: [HARD QUESTION]. Don't answer from memory. Search widely, weigh the best evidence on each side, and give me a direct answer with the reasoning shown. Cite every claim with a link and its publication date, prefer recent primary sources, and clearly flag anything where the evidence is thin or conflicting.

Turn on Web search. Give me an up-to-date brief on [TOPIC]. I want the current facts, not background from memory. Structure it as: what's true right now, what changed most recently, and what's still contested. Cite every claim with a link and its publication date, prefer recent primary sources, and flag anything you couldn't confirm from a dated source.

Turn on Web search. What are the most significant developments in [FIELD] from the last 30 days? List up to 8, newest first. For each: what happened, why it matters, the date, and a source link. Prefer primary sources, skip anything you can't tie to a dated credible source, and note if a story is still developing.

Turn on Web search. Find the most important recent sources on [RESEARCH QUESTION]: studies, reports, and credible analyses from the last [TIMEFRAME]. For each, give a two-sentence summary, the key finding, the publication date, and a link. Cite every source with a link, prefer primary sources, then close with where the evidence agrees and where it conflicts.

Turn on Web search and Thinking mode. Find the leading sources arguing different positions on [CONTESTED TOPIC]. Build a table: Source | Position | Strongest evidence they offer | Link and date. Then tell me where they actually disagree, which side has the better-sourced case, and what evidence would settle it. Cite every source with a link, and prefer recent primary sources over opinion pieces.

Turn on Web search. I have two sources that seem to disagree about [TOPIC]: [SOURCE A] and [SOURCE B]. Read both, then lay out exactly where they agree, where they conflict, and why the numbers or claims differ (different dates, definitions, methods, or bias). Cite the specific passage and link for each point of conflict, and tell me which one to trust for [MY PURPOSE].

Turn on Web search and Thinking mode. On [QUESTION], what does the weight of credible recent sources say, and which reputable sources dissent? Give me the mainstream view with citations, then the strongest outlier view with citations, and judge whether the outlier is a fringe take or an early signal worth watching. Cite every claim with a link and date, and prefer primary sources.

I've uploaded [DOCUMENT]. Read the full document and write a one-page executive summary for a [ROLE] who hasn't read it. Cover the main argument or purpose, the 5 most important points, any numbers that matter, and the conclusion or recommendation. Cite the section or page for each point so I can trace it back. End with three questions the document leaves unanswered.

Read the uploaded [DOCUMENT] and give me a section-by-section digest. For each major section: a two-line summary, the single most important takeaway, and any figure or statistic worth remembering. Keep the original section order and headings so I can map your digest back to the source. End with one paragraph on how the sections fit together.

From the attached [DOCUMENT], extract every substantive claim the author makes. For each, give a table row: Claim | Evidence they offer | How strong the evidence is (strong / weak / none) | Section. Be honest where a claim is asserted without support, and don't add claims that aren't in the document.

Turn on Web search and Thinking mode. Fact-check this claim: "[CLAIM]". Find the original source, what the primary evidence actually says, and how credible outlets have covered it. Rate it True / Misleading / False / Unproven with a short reason. Cite every source with a link and its date, prefer recent primary sources, and separate what's confirmed from what's still uncertain. If you can't verify it, say so plainly.

I've uploaded [DOCUMENT]. Pull out every statistic, figure, and quantitative claim in it. Then turn on Web search and check each one against a primary or credible source. In a table: Stat as stated | What the source actually says | Match / Off / Can't verify | Source link and date. Prefer the original primary source, don't guess, and mark anything you can't confirm as "Can't verify".

Turn on Web search. Here's a set of statements I've gathered about [TOPIC]: [PASTE STATEMENTS]. For each, tell me whether it's confirmed by a recent credible source, partly true with caveats, or unsupported. Give a link and date for every "confirmed", prefer primary sources, and put the results in two clear lists — Confirmed and Needs verification — so I know what I can rely on.

I've uploaded [PDF]. Find the table(s) about [WHAT] and reproduce them as clean Markdown tables with the exact values and headers from the source. Don't round, reorder, or invent rows. Note the page each table came from. If any value is unclear in the source, mark it [unclear] rather than guessing.

I've uploaded [FILE], which is messy and unstructured. Extract the [ENTITIES / RECORDS] into a structured table with these columns: [COLUMN LIST]. One row per record, values pulled verbatim from the source, and a "source location" column pointing to where each row came from. Flag rows where a field was missing rather than filling it in. Output as a Markdown table I can copy into a spreadsheet.

Read the uploaded [REPORT] and extract every named entity and key figure: organizations, people, dates, monetary amounts, and percentages. Group them by type in a table with the exact value and the section it appears in. Then turn on Web search and verify the three most important figures against a primary source, citing a link and date for each.

Turn on Deep Research. Scan the competitive landscape for [PRODUCT / COMPANY] in [MARKET]. Identify the top 6-8 competitors and build a table: Competitor | Positioning | Pricing | Key strength | Key weakness | Source link and date. Prefer primary sources like company sites and filings, cite each cell you can, and end with where [PRODUCT / COMPANY] has the clearest opening.

Turn on Deep Research. Build a profile of [COMPETITOR]: what they sell, their pricing, target customer, recent product moves, funding or financials, and their public strengths and weaknesses. Prefer primary sources — their site, filings, and official announcements — and cite every claim with a link and date. Separate confirmed facts from inferences, and end with how they'd likely respond to [OUR MOVE].

Turn on Deep Research and Thinking mode. Estimate the market size (TAM/SAM/SOM) for [PRODUCT / MARKET] in [REGION] as of [YEAR]. Show your method and every input number, and cite each input with a link and publication date, preferring primary sources over recycled estimates. Give a range, not a single false-precision figure, and flag the assumption that most affects the result.