LeadHaste
AdvancedNo variables to fill — paste & go

Design a prompt chain for a multi-step research pipeline

Designs a production research pipeline as a chain of single-job prompts with strict JSON contracts, validation gates, model-tier assignments, and cost math — then writes every step prompt for unattended execution. It converts the flaky mega-prompt most teams start with into a debuggable assembly line where failures surface at gates instead of polluting output.

The prompt
You are an AI pipeline designer who has built research chains processing tens of thousands of accounts through Clay and n8n, and you've learned the expensive way that one mega-prompt doing five jobs fails unpredictably, while five small prompts with contracts between them fail loudly and fixably. Your rule: every step does one job, emits strict JSON, and validates before the next step spends money.

Design a prompt chain for the research pipeline I describe. Output:

1. CHAIN MAP — numbered steps, each with: its single job, its input fields, its output schema (exact JSON keys and types), and the model tier it needs (cheap and fast versus strong reasoning), because paying flagship prices for classification is how budgets die.
2. STEP PROMPTS — the complete prompt for each step, written for unattended execution: no questions to the user, no prose outside the JSON, explicit instructions for missing or malformed input (emit a defined error object, never guess), and one worked example inside each prompt.
3. VALIDATION GATES — between each pair of steps: what gets checked (required keys present, values within enums, confidence above threshold) and where failing rows go.
4. COST AND LATENCY — rough tokens per step, cost per 1,000 rows at listed model prices, and where caching or batching cuts it.
5. FAILURE ACCOUNTING — the percentage of rows you expect to drop at each gate, so I know what end-to-end yield looks like before building.

Rules: no step may both retrieve and judge — separate gathering from scoring. Confidence fields are mandatory on every judgment step. Chains longer than six steps need a defended reason.

Before designing, interview me. Ask ONE AT A TIME, waiting for my answer each time:
1. What question should the pipeline answer for each account or contact?
2. What raw inputs exist at the start (domain, LinkedIn URL, scraped text)?
3. Where does the chain run — Clay AI columns, n8n, or code?
4. What volume per month, and what budget per 1,000 rows?
5. What does the final output feed into, and what format does it need?

Then produce the chain with all step prompts ready to paste.

How to use it

  1. 1

    Copy the prompt into Claude, ChatGPT, or any LLM.

  2. 2

    Answer the interview precisely on question 5 — the final consumer's format requirements ripple backward through every schema.

  3. 3

    Paste each step prompt into its Clay column or n8n node exactly as written, wiring the validation gates between them.

  4. 4

    Run 20 rows end to end, inspect what each gate dropped, and bring failures back to the chat for step-level fixes.

Best practices

  • Use cheap models for extraction and classification steps and reserve strong models for the judgment step — it routinely cuts pipeline cost 60-80%.

  • Never let a step's output schema drift without updating the next step's prompt; contract mismatch is the top silent pipeline killer.

  • Log every step's raw output for the first thousand rows — you cannot debug what you didn't keep.

  • Rebuild one step at a time when improving; changing three steps at once destroys your ability to attribute the improvement.

Example: what this looks like in practice

A growth engineer at a 30-person devtools company wants each of 8,000 monthly accounts answered: 'does this company run a self-serve motion, and who owns growth?' Inputs are domain and a scraped homepage. The chain comes back as five steps: extract page facts (cheap model), classify motion against a defined enum, find the growth owner via a search step, score confidence, and compose a CRM-ready JSON record. Validation gates drop rows with empty scrapes and sub-0.7 confidence, with failure accounting predicting 22% total drop. Cost math lands at $14 per 1,000 rows versus the $90 their single GPT-4-class mega-prompt was burning. Built as five Clay columns with run conditions, the yield prediction proves accurate within three points and errors now name the step that produced them.

Best fit

Roles
RevOpsFounder / CEOMarketer
Company size
Startup (1–10)SMB (11–50)Mid-market (51–500)
Audience
B2B
Industries
Any industry
Works with
Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini
Difficulty
Advanced

This prompt is one gear in a bigger machine. We orchestrate 20+ tools into outbound systems our clients own — and guarantee the results.

Apply for a Pilot Spot →
Prompt FAQ

Frequently asked questions

Prompt chaining splits a complex AI task into sequential single-job prompts, each consuming the previous step's structured output. Use it whenever a task involves multiple distinct operations — extract, classify, judge, compose — especially at volume. Chains cost less (cheap models handle simple steps), fail visibly at defined gates, and can be fixed one step at a time.

More automation & workflow design prompts