Multi-model research review

A product team is preparing for a quarterly review: internal materials are already complete, but public information still needs to be added, and the viewpoints given by different models need to be compared. The final deliverable should be a research report that can be traced back to its sources for verification and clearly distinguishes facts from judgments.

At the start of the research, first determine the comparison models and the scope of the questions, and do not change the criteria arbitrarily midway.

Put different hypotheses into separate branches, then return to the main thread and summarize the conclusions that have already been confirmed.

1. Clearly state the inspection dimensions and known conditions in the prompt; 2. Present the results in the same structure so they are easy to compare further, question, and verify manually.

Recommended combination

• [Dialogue] Multiple models: identify consensus, disagreements, and omissions;
• Research Agent: drive tasks forward, break down subtasks, and generate reports;
• Knowledge base: retrieve internal materials;
• Web search or trusted MCP: supplement external sources;
• Working directory: save raw materials and final deliverables.

Workflow

1

1. Compare viewpoints using the same question

In [Dialogue], select multiple models and ask each to list conclusions, assumptions, sources, and uncertainties separately. Organize the real conflicts into questions for further research.

2

2. Create a research Agent

Bind the relevant knowledge base and research skills, and keep permissions at [confirm each time]. In the working directory, store the raw materials and report/ output directory separately.

3

3. Assign subtasks

Have the Agent separately check the factual timeline, data changes, and external viewpoints, then have the main Agent compare the conflicts. Information that cannot be confirmed should remain pending verification and not be forcibly merged.

4

4. Generate the report and review manually

The report includes conclusions, sources, uncertainties, and next actions. Check citations, dates, and numbers in the right-side [Files] before publishing.

Example task

Review the project materials in the current directory and supplement them with public information. Write facts, judgments, and recommendations separately; keep source links for external information. Check the timeline, data, and risks separately, and finally generate the report in report/review.md. Do not modify files in raw/.

Preparation before use and completion criteria

Item	Recommended preparation
Research question	State the conclusion to be compared in one sentence
Source requirements	Specify the time range, region, and acceptable sources
Recommended combination	Multi-model comparison is used to collect differences, branches are used for follow-up questions, and notes are used to save confirmed conclusions
Completion criteria	Each key conclusion can be traced back to a source; disagreements are listed separately; unconfirmed content is not written as fact

This case is suitable for research that needs to compare viewpoints and review decision-making processes, but it is not suitable for directly treating multi-model voting as factual judgment.

High-risk topics such as finance, healthcare, and law cannot rely solely on model conclusions. The report should retain sources and be reviewed by someone with the relevant experience or qualifications.