Once Claude is connected to a verified regulatory data layer, the quality of your answers depends on how you ask. This is a library of regulatory research prompts that work well with Claude and the Obsidian MCP, organized by what you are trying to do, plus the habits that make every answer more reliable.

If you have not connected yet, start with how to connect a regulatory MCP to Claude. The prompts below assume the connection is live.

Monitoring: what changed

The everyday use. Scope tightly by framework, jurisdiction, and time, and ask for receipts.

  • "What changed on REACH this week? EU only, top 5, with the source and date for each."
  • "Summarize new CSRD and ESRS developments in the last 30 days. Flag anything that affects Wave 1 reporters."
  • "Any MDR or MDCG guidance updates in the last quarter? List current versus superseded."

Status checks: is this in force

The questions a general model gets wrong most often, because they hinge on current status.

  • "Is [substance, by name or CAS] on the REACH Candidate List? Is it restricted in the EU and the US? Give me the status and source for each."
  • "Is the EU AI Act in force, and which obligations apply now versus later?"
  • "What is the current transition deadline for a Class IIb device under MDR?"

Framework deep-dives

  • "Lay out the current CSRD reporting timeline with official references and dates. Note anything changed by the Omnibus package."
  • "Explain the REACH restriction pipeline from SVHC to Annex XVII, and where the universal PFAS restriction sits today."
  • "What are the core MDR obligations for a software-as-a-medical-device product, and which MDCG guidance applies?"

Comparisons

  • "Compare the EU MDR and the US FDA 510(k) pathway for a Class IIa device. Where do the requirements diverge?"
  • "How does CSRD differ from the older NFRD it replaced?"

Briefings and drafts

Turn verified data into something you can circulate. Always have Claude keep the sources.

  • "Draft a one-page regulatory briefing on PFAS for our chemicals team. Plain language, with a sources section at the end."
  • "Write a short internal note on what the Omnibus simplification changes for our CSRD obligations, with the official references."

Deadlines and forward look

  • "What regulatory deadlines hit the chemicals industry in the EU in the next 90 days?"
  • "What upcoming milestones should an ESG reporting team be tracking this year?"

Try these prompts on your own questions

Connect Obsidian to Claude and ask in plain English, with a source and date on every answer. Free tier, two-minute setup.

Explore the Obsidian MCP

Five habits that make answers more reliable

  • Always ask for the source and date. "Include the official reference and date for each" turns a summary into something verifiable.
  • Scope by jurisdiction. "EU only" or "EU and US" stops the model from blending regimes.
  • Ask for status explicitly. "Is this in force, or proposed?" forces the distinction that matters most.
  • Bound the time window. "In the last 30 days" keeps monitoring answers focused.
  • Ask it to flag uncertainty. "If the data does not cover this, say so" discourages the model from filling gaps with guesses.

The takeaway

With a verified data layer connected, Claude becomes a fast, tireless regulatory researcher, but it is still a researcher you direct. Tight scope, explicit requests for source and status, and a habit of asking for receipts are what turn it into a tool you can trust. To make this repeatable, see building an agentic compliance workflow.