A BETTER WAY TO SHARE THE WORK
Turn a research paper into an explainer without losing its limits
Help readers understand what a study found—and what it does not let them conclude.
New to creating with an agent? The request will guide it through the task. Bring your notes; you don’t need to write HTML.
How can an agent help explain a research paper responsibly?
Give the agent the paper and ask for a source-linked companion, not a stronger conclusion. Organize the page around the research question, study design, measured findings, limitations, and remaining questions. Verify every number and interpretation against the original before sharing a readable HTML explanation alongside the paper.
01 / SEE THE DIFFERENCE
A careful explanation of a hypothetical study
This invented study is only a writing example. Its participants and results are synthetic and must not be cited as research evidence.
New research proves the redesigned guide makes everyone learn faster.
- Question
- Could participants complete a sample setup task more quickly with a reorganized guide?
- Design
- In this hypothetical comparison, 24 volunteers used one of two guides for the same practice task.
- Reported finding
- The reorganized-guide group had a lower median completion time in the sample. Exact values and assignment details would need to come from a real paper.
- Boundary
- A result from one short task would not, by itself, establish better long-term learning or a benefit for every audience.
- Next question
- Would the pattern hold for a different task, a broader participant group, and a measure of later recall?
02 / MAKE IT YOURSELF
Start with the evidence. Shape the page around the reader.
State the question before the result
Explain what the researchers were trying to learn and why that question matters to this audience. Define the comparison and measured outcome in ordinary language. Keep the authors’ motivation separate from your reason for sharing the paper. A reader should understand the question before encountering a headline number.
Explain how the evidence was produced
Summarize the population or dataset, study design, comparison, and timeframe using the paper’s own details. Show what was measured rather than substituting a broader concept. If the method does not support a causal conclusion, do not write one. Ask the agent to flag ambiguity rather than smoothing it away.
Pair each finding with its boundary
Place limitations beside the claims they qualify, not only in a final disclaimer. Preserve units, denominators, uncertainty, and the distinction between reported results and your interpretation. Use short quotations only when necessary and attribute them. Create original explanatory visuals rather than reproducing copyrighted figures without permission.
Verify and publish a companion
Check the draft line by line against the paper, especially numbers, figure descriptions, and words such as proves or causes. Link readers to the source and label the page as an explanation, not the paper itself. Apply your saved style if available with clear separation between evidence and commentary. Publish only after review and an audience-appropriate access check.
03 / TRY THIS PROMPT
Copy this into your agent. Add your source material.
Use the conversation where you already did the work, or start one with your notes. Replace the placeholders and supply any missing context; only attach information you are allowed to share with your agent.
Get the ready-to-copy creation request for guided questions, this task, and a draft review before anything is published.
Using the complete paper and supplementary material I supply, create a plain-language research companion as static HTML for the audience I describe. Explain the research question, design, population or dataset, measured outcomes, principal findings, and limitations. Pair important claims with their boundaries and supplied source locations. Distinguish the authors’ conclusions from interpretation. Preserve units, denominators, uncertainty, and publication status. Do not invent statistics, citations, quotations, or causal claims. Flag missing material and points requiring expert review. Use original explanatory wording; do not reproduce figures without permission. Apply my saved artifact style if available, with accessible hierarchy. No scripts or forms. Return the draft for verification and do not publish or change access until I approve.
04 / BEFORE YOU SEND
A polished page still needs your judgment.
- Can each result, number, and quotation be traced to the supplied paper or supplement?
- Are study design, population, measurement, and uncertainty accurately described?
- Do the headline and summary preserve the limitations rather than overstate the finding?
- Are source attribution, publication status, reproduction rights, and any sensitive data handled appropriately?
When HTML fits
A reading companion for a journal club, team discussion, or public explanation, with source links and explicit separation of evidence and interpretation.
When another format fits better
A substitute for the full paper, systematic review, peer review, or professional advice. A polished explanation does not make weak or incomplete evidence stronger.
FROM DRAFT TO A LINK
Make it clear. Make it yours. Then share it.
Keep creating and revising in the agent you already use. With a compatible connection, share/artifacts publishes the reviewed HTML so you do not have to rebuild it in another editor. Ask your agent to use your saved artifact style for headings, color, and tone; review the result before sending it.
Choose who should be able to open the page and verify the returned link. For corrections to the same deliverable, update the existing artifact without changing its link. Publish a separate artifact when the old edition needs to remain available.
These are static pages, not live apps: no scripts, forms, or automatic data refresh. Source collection and scheduling depend on your agent and its available tools, not on share/artifacts.
Make this with my agentQuestions before you start
Can I create this from the abstract alone?
You can write a clearly labeled abstract-only summary, but not a full assessment of methods or limitations. Say what material was available and what could not be checked. For a substantive explainer, provide the full paper and relevant supplementary material.
How much technical detail should remain?
Keep the details needed to judge the main claim: design, comparison, measurement, population, and uncertainty. Define unfamiliar terms and put deeper explanation later. Simplifying the language should not remove a limitation that changes what a reader can reasonably conclude.
What if papers disagree?
Give each paper its own claim and boundary before comparing them. Different populations, methods, or outcomes can make apparently conflicting results hard to compare. Label the comparison as your synthesis and avoid presenting a small selected set as a complete review of the literature.