# Autonomous research agent

> When the task is 'research this market and write a 3-page summary' or 'find me 50 leads in this niche with verified contact info', a chat LLM is the wrong tool — too much hand-holding. Manus runs the multi-step plan autonomously and returns a deliverable. Claude is the QA gate before you trust it.

Source: https://aistack.sh/stack/autonomous-research-agent
Category: Research · Intelligence
Level: Intermediate
Last verified by a human: 2026-05-05

## The tools

### Manus — Autonomous executor

- Pricing: Free credits · paid plans from ~$20/mo · see manus.im/pricing
- Site: https://manus.im
- Why this one: Plans, executes, and returns a deliverable for high-context multi-step work. Good for research, list building, lightweight analysis. The right pick when the task would otherwise be a dozen chat turns and a human aggregator.
- More: https://aistack.sh/tool/manus

### Claude — QA + sanity check

- Pricing: Free · $20/mo Pro · $100/mo Max 5x · $200/mo Max 20x · Sonnet API $2/$10 per M tokens (input/output)
- Site: https://claude.ai
- Why this one: Read the Manus output critically. Cross-check 3 to 5 claims with citations. Don't act on autonomous output without a human-in-the-loop pass.
- Swap in instead: ChatGPT, Perplexity
- More: https://aistack.sh/tool/claude

## Monthly cost

### $20/mo — Trial / occasional use (small)

- Manus: Free trial
- Claude: $20 (QA)

### $59/mo — Weekly research runs (medium)

- Manus: $39 Starter
- Claude: $20

### $219/mo — Daily delegated work (heavy)

- Manus: $199 Pro
- Claude: $20

## Workflow

### 1. Write the goal, not the steps (Manus)

Manus plans best when given the destination, not the route. 'Find me 30 EU-based SaaS companies in the HR space with public funding rounds in 2025' beats 'first search Crunchbase, then…'.

**Prompt: Goal-shaped Manus prompt**

```
I want a deliverable, not a chat. Here's the goal.

Goal:
"""
{{describe the deliverable: what it is, who it's for, what 'done' looks like}}
"""

Constraints:
- Time budget: {{e.g. "no more than 30 min of agent time"}}
- Quality bar: {{e.g. "every claim has a primary-source link"}}
- Format: {{Markdown / Google Doc / CSV with these columns / etc.}}
- Out of scope: {{things you should NOT spend cycles on}}

Run the plan. Hand me the deliverable when it's done.
```

### 2. Watch the first 2 to 3 steps (Manus)

Manus is autonomous, not magical. The first few steps tell you whether the plan is on the right track. Cancel + re-prompt if it's drifting.

### 3. QA with Claude (Claude)

Don't act on autonomous output blind. Run a structured QA pass against the deliverable.

**Prompt: QA pass on autonomous output**

```
Audit the deliverable below for trustworthiness before I act on it.

Deliverable:
"""
{{paste Manus output}}
"""

Goal it was supposed to satisfy:
"""
{{paste original goal}}
"""

Output:
1. **Coverage** — did it actually answer the goal? Anything missing?
2. **Trust spot-checks** — pick 3 specific claims and tell me which I should verify by hand.
3. **Format issues** — does it match the requested format? Are headings, columns, links right?
4. **Red flags** — fabricated facts, broken links, hallucinated names. List specifically.
5. **Verdict** — ship as-is / fix list / re-run with a tighter prompt.

Be a skeptical reviewer, not a polite one.
```

## What it produced

**GTM analyst, weekly market scan**

Replaced 3 hours of manual Crunchbase / LinkedIn search per week with a Manus run. Quality was within 90% on the first pass after the QA step caught 4 fabricated funding rounds. The QA gate is non-optional.

## Pitfalls

- **Trusting autonomous output blind** — Manus hallucinates with the same physics as any LLM — just over more steps, with more confidence. The Claude QA step is the only thing keeping bad data out of your decisions.
- **Over-broad goals** — 'Research the EU SaaS market' is unbounded. Tight constraints make Manus useful; loose ones make it expensive.

---

Curated by rae-f on aistack.sh. Last updated 2026-05-05.