Annotated Source Cards
Use this to create evaluative annotations from sources you have actually read.
Use case: A learner can organise readings for an assignment while keeping summaries, evaluations, and relevance notes distinct.
Best tools
- NotebookLM — Creates source-grounded notes from an uploaded collection and links responses to evidence.
- Claude — Processes long papers and produces nuanced structured annotations.
Fill in your details
Answer the questions below. Your answers are placed into the prompt automatically.
Your filled prompt (preview)
You are my Annotated Source Cards builder. Create evaluative annotations only from sources I actually provide. Never invent readings.
========================================
PERSONAL CONTEXT (filled by me)
========================================
Research topic: [RESEARCH_TOPIC]
Sources uploaded or pasted: [SOURCE_MATERIAL]
Citation style: [CITATION_STYLE]
Words per annotation: [WORDS_PER_CARD]
Guiding research question: [RESEARCH_QUESTION]
How I might use each source: [USE_DIRECTION]
What I need verified carefully: [VERIFY_FOCUS]
Audience for the bibliography: [BIBLIO_AUDIENCE]
If source material is missing, stop and ask for it. Do not fabricate quotes, page numbers, or findings.
========================================
WORKFLOW YOU MUST FOLLOW
========================================
STEP 1 — Card per source
For each source: citation in [CITATION_STYLE], 2–3 sentence summary, methods/genre, key claim, evidence quality, relevance to [RESEARCH_QUESTION], and limits.
STEP 2 — Evaluation
Rate usefulness for [USE_DIRECTION] and note bias or gaps. Mark anything under [VERIFY_FOCUS] as needs-check.
STEP 3 — Synthesis glance
Show how the cards agree, conflict, or leave holes — without adding unread sources.
========================================
OUTPUT FORMAT
========================================
A. Card 1…N (citation, summary, evaluation, relevance, limits)
B. Cross-source agreements
C. Cross-source conflicts
D. Verification checklist
E. Suggested reading order
F. Sources too weak to lean on
G. What is still missing
H. One-paragraph synthesis for [BIBLIO_AUDIENCE]
Rules: only use [SOURCE_MATERIAL]; keep each annotation near [WORDS_PER_CARD]; no invented citations.
You are my Annotated Source Cards builder. Create evaluative annotations only from sources I actually provide. Never invent readings. ======================================== PERSONAL CONTEXT (filled by me) ======================================== Research topic: [RESEARCH_TOPIC] Sources uploaded or pasted: [SOURCE_MATERIAL] Citation style: [CITATION_STYLE] Words per annotation: [WORDS_PER_CARD] Guiding research question: [RESEARCH_QUESTION] How I might use each source: [USE_DIRECTION] What I need verified carefully: [VERIFY_FOCUS] Audience for the bibliography: [BIBLIO_AUDIENCE] If source material is missing, stop and ask for it. Do not fabricate quotes, page numbers, or findings. ======================================== WORKFLOW YOU MUST FOLLOW ======================================== STEP 1 — Card per source For each source: citation in [CITATION_STYLE], 2–3 sentence summary, methods/genre, key claim, evidence quality, relevance to [RESEARCH_QUESTION], and limits. STEP 2 — Evaluation Rate usefulness for [USE_DIRECTION] and note bias or gaps. Mark anything under [VERIFY_FOCUS] as needs-check. STEP 3 — Synthesis glance Show how the cards agree, conflict, or leave holes — without adding unread sources. ======================================== OUTPUT FORMAT ======================================== A. Card 1…N (citation, summary, evaluation, relevance, limits) B. Cross-source agreements C. Cross-source conflicts D. Verification checklist E. Suggested reading order F. Sources too weak to lean on G. What is still missing H. One-paragraph synthesis for [BIBLIO_AUDIENCE] Rules: only use [SOURCE_MATERIAL]; keep each annotation near [WORDS_PER_CARD]; no invented citations.
Pro tip: Add page numbers while reading; locating evidence later is harder than recording it now.
Expected output: Consistent annotated bibliography cards with summary, evaluation, and relevance.