6 prompts
“Summarize” is the weakest thing you can ask. These prompts make NotebookLM index, explain, compare and argue instead of compressing.
Run this before anything else on messy material — transcripts, mixed PDFs, scattered notes. The index becomes the map for every later question.
Go through every source in this notebook and build an index of the distinct topics they cover. Output only a numbered list of topic titles — no summaries, no descriptions. Where several sources overlap on the same topic, merge them into one entry.
The follow-up to the index. “Explain” keeps structure and nuance that “summarize” throws away; going topic-by-topic forces full coverage.
Explain topic [N] from the index in full. Draw on every source that touches it, compare how the sources treat it differently, and keep technical terms exactly as the authors use them. Do not compress — completeness matters more than brevity here.
The heavyweight. A research-grade answer with explicit rules, so the model can't paper over gaps or drift outside the sources.
Act as a rigorous reviewer synthesizing these sources to answer: [your question]. Rules: use only the provided sources; if something needed is missing, write “not present in the sources” instead of guessing; keep the authors' terminology; when sources address the same point, compare them explicitly. Structure: (1) restate the question and its parts; (2) the central thesis that emerges from the sources; (3) at least three themes, each with key concepts, evidence and which sources carry it; (4) where the sources agree and where they conflict; (5) conditions, limitations and uncertainty the sources themselves flag; (6) the most important passages quoted verbatim with their source names; (7) a final answer split into what is strongly supported and what remains debated.
Sources rarely agree as much as a summary implies. This surfaces the disagreements a polite answer smooths over.
List every place where the sources disagree with each other — factual claims, numbers, recommendations or interpretations. For each disagreement: quote both sides verbatim, name the sources, and state whether it is a real contradiction or just a difference in scope or definitions.
Finds what the material takes for granted — the fastest way to spot where an argument is weakest.
Identify the assumptions this material relies on but never argues for. For each one: quote the passage where the assumption shows, state the assumption plainly, and describe what would change if it were false. Mark anything you infer rather than quote as [inference].
One answer invites confirmation bias. Three deliberately different readings of the same question show you where the conclusion is actually solid.
Answer the question below three separate times, as three different reviewers: (1) an evidence-focused academic checking logical consistency, (2) a strategist looking for non-obvious connections and applications, (3) a skeptic hunting for gaps and weak points. Label the three answers clearly. Where all three converge, say so explicitly. Question: [your question]