22 Qwen Prompts for Research & Analysis (2026)

Switch to Deep Research. I want a thorough, cited report on: [TOPIC / QUESTION]. Scope: [WHAT TO INCLUDE, WHAT TO IGNORE, TIME PERIOD, REGION]. I'll use it for [PURPOSE / AUDIENCE]. Search a wide range of sources, prefer primary and recent ones, and where sources disagree, lay out each side and say which is better supported. Structure the report with clear sections, cite every claim with a linked source, and end with the key open questions and what I'd need to resolve them.

Before you start researching [TOPIC], help me scope it. Ask me 4-6 sharp questions that would change how you research this — audience, depth, time frame, region, which sub-questions matter most, and what I already know. Wait for my answers, then propose a short research plan: the key sub-questions you'll investigate and the kinds of sources you'll prioritize. Once I approve the plan, switch to Deep Research and run it.

Switch to Deep Research. Produce a landscape report on the current state of [FIELD / QUESTION]. Cover: the main approaches or positions, who the key players or sources are, what's well established versus contested, recent developments, and where the field is heading. For each major claim, cite the source and note its date. Organize by theme, not by source, and finish with a short table of the leading positions and their strongest evidence.

Take the Deep Research report above and repackage it two ways. First, a shareable webpage version: a tight headline, a two-sentence summary, clear sections with subheads, and a sources list at the bottom with working links. Second, a script for a two-host podcast episode of about [10] minutes: a natural back-and-forth that explains the main findings and the open questions to a general listener, no jargon left unexplained. Keep every fact faithful to the report.

Turn on Web Search. Write me a brief on [TOPIC / QUESTION] as of this month. Cover the current state, the main viewpoints, and where things are heading. Cite every source with a link, prefer primary and recent sources, and put the publication date next to each fact. End with what's still uncertain or contested, and flag anything you couldn't confirm from a solid source.

Turn on Web Search. Tell me what has changed with [TOPIC] since [DATE]. Focus only on genuinely new developments — announcements, data, decisions, or reversals — not background I already know. For each item give the date, a one-line summary of what happened, why it matters, and a linked source. Order them newest first, and skip rumors you can't tie to a credible source.

Turn on Web Search. Give me a current snapshot of [MARKET / PRODUCT / METRIC]: the latest figures, the recent trend, and the main factors moving it right now. Present the numbers in a small table with the value, the date it's from, and a linked source for each. Note how fresh the data is and whether any figure is an estimate rather than a confirmed number. Keep commentary brief and factual.

Turn on Web Search. Answer this specific question: [QUESTION]. Give me the direct answer first in one or two sentences, then the evidence behind it. Cite each supporting source with a link and its date, prefer primary sources over aggregators, and if credible sources disagree, say so and give both. If the honest answer is "it depends" or "not settled," say that plainly rather than picking a side.

Turn on Web Search and Thinking. Find the main sources on [QUESTION] and compare them in a table with these columns: Source | Key claim | Evidence given | Date | Link. Include at least [5] sources spanning different viewpoints. After the table, tell me in a sentence each where the strongest and weakest evidence sits, and flag any source that looks outdated or low-quality. Cite everything with a link.

Turn on Web Search and Thinking. On the question of [QUESTION], map where the sources agree and where they conflict. Give me three lists: points of consensus, points of genuine disagreement, and points where the difference is really just definitions or framing. For each disagreement, name who takes which side and what evidence each relies on. Cite sources with links, and don't smooth over a real conflict to make it look settled.

Turn on Thinking. Here are two opposing positions on [TOPIC]: [POSITION A] and [POSITION B]. Steelman each one — state the strongest honest case for it and the best evidence it rests on. Then judge them: which assumptions does each depend on, where is each weakest, and which is better supported overall given what we know. Be clear about your reasoning and about what evidence would change the verdict. If you turn on Web Search, cite what you use.

Turn on Web Search and Thinking. I've gathered conflicting information on [QUESTION]: [PASTE OR ATTACH THE SOURCES / NOTES]. Synthesize it into a single best answer. Weigh the sources by quality and recency, resolve the conflicts explicitly (say why one wins), and give me the conclusion the evidence most supports right now — with a confidence level. Note which sources you discounted and why, and what would move the conclusion.

I've attached a document. Read it in full, then give me: a 3-sentence summary, the 5-7 most important points as bullets, any conclusions or recommendations it makes, and anything it leaves unanswered or assumes without evidence. Ground every point in the document only — if something isn't in it, say so rather than filling the gap from general knowledge. Note the page or section for each key point so I can find it.

I've attached a document. I'll ask you questions about it. Answer only from what's actually in the document, quoting or citing the relevant part for each answer. If the document doesn't address something, say "not covered in the document" instead of guessing or using outside knowledge. First question: [YOUR QUESTION].

Turn on Thinking. I've attached a report/paper. Read it, then critique its argument. Lay out its main claim and the evidence it uses, then assess: are the conclusions supported by the data shown, what assumptions is it making, what's missing or cherry-picked, and where is the reasoning weakest. Separate substantive problems from minor ones. Be specific and quote the passages you're reacting to. Keep it fair — note what it does well too.

I've attached [NUMBER] documents. Read all of them, then compare them on [DIMENSIONS — e.g. their main claim, methodology, findings, and recommendations]. Build a table with one column per document and one row per dimension. After the table, tell me where they agree, where they conflict, and which is most rigorous and why. Ground everything in the documents and note the source document for each point.

Turn on Web Search. 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 primary sources over commentary, and clearly separate what's confirmed from what's still uncertain. If the claim is partly true, say which part.

Turn on Web Search. Trace this statistic to its origin: "[STAT AND WHERE YOU SAW IT]". Find who first produced the number, the methodology and sample behind it, the date, and whether it's being quoted accurately or stripped of context. Tell me if it's current or outdated, and whether more recent or better data exists. Give the linked primary source, and flag it if the number can't be traced to one.

Turn on Web Search. Here are several claims from [SOURCE — e.g. an article, ad, or speech]: [PASTE CLAIMS]. Check each one independently. Return a table: Claim | Rating (True / Misleading / False / Unproven) | What the evidence shows | Linked source. Prefer primary sources, note the date of each, and after the table give a one-line overall read on how reliable the source is.

I've attached a file. Extract [WHAT YOU NEED — e.g. every date, name, and amount] and return it as a clean table with columns [COLUMN 1, COLUMN 2, ...]. Read the whole document, don't skip sections, and leave a cell blank rather than guessing if a value isn't stated. After the table, list anything ambiguous you had to interpret, and give me the same data as CSV so I can paste it into a spreadsheet.

I've attached a document. Extract every [ENTITY TYPE — e.g. company, person, date, dollar figure, obligation] and organize them into structured records. For each, capture [FIELDS — e.g. name, role, context, source location in the doc]. Return it as a table and as JSON. Don't invent fields that aren't supported by the text, mark anything uncertain, and note any entity you found more than once with conflicting details.

Turn on Code Interpreter. I've attached a data file ([CSV / XLSX]). Load it, then: describe the columns and row count, compute summary statistics for the numeric fields, and answer these questions with actual calculations: [YOUR QUESTIONS — e.g. trend over time, top categories, correlations]. Show the code you ran, flag any data-quality issues you hit (missing values, duplicates), and make one clear chart of the most important finding.