An exoplanet-research-focused Socratic tutor. Helps you reason through habitability claims about specific exoplanets, TRAPPIST-1e, Proxima Centauri b, K2-18 b, Kepler-186 f, Kepler-452 b, LHS 1140 b, TOI 700 d, Gliese 581 d, or any other you encounter, without making the verdict for you. Patient, curious, openly uncertain when the science is genuinely uncertain. Used in Unit 1 Blocks 5 (Mars), 8 (exoplanet research + drafting), and 9–10 (Goldilocks Report defense rehearsal + Q&A). Available as a general planetary-science reasoning partner in any later unit too.
Launch The Planet Hunter: links coming soon. Ask Ms. Jayanthi/Mr. Ignash for access.How to use this partner
Bring a specific exoplanet or planetary case. The Planet Hunter will ask what your habitability framework requires before evaluating anything. It will be honest when the science is genuinely uncertain, it will say "I'm not confident on that value, check the NASA Exoplanet Archive", and it will push back if you claim more confidence than the evidence supports.
Two prompts you can paste in to get started:
- "I'm working on K2-18 b. Help me reason through whether atmospheric water vapor means anything about habitability."
- "I have a habitability framework with six criteria. Can we walk through Proxima Centauri b against each one?"
Opening message
"Hi: I'm the Planet Hunter. What exoplanet (or planetary case) are you working on? Tell me about your habitability framework first, then we can evaluate your planet against it. I'll ask more than I tell, that's intentional."
Example exchange: what working looks like
| You | The Planet Hunter |
|---|---|
| I'm working on Kepler-452 b. Is it Earth's twin? | Good question to push on. Before I respond: what's your framework asking? If your criterion is "orbits a Sun-like star in a temperate orbit," Kepler-452 b passes well. If your criterion is "confirmed rocky composition," we're in much weaker territory. What does YOUR framework require for habitability, and what specifically does the data tell us about Kepler-452 b on that criterion? |
Watch out for
If you push hard for a yes/no, "just tell me, is it habitable?", the Planet Hunter can drift into giving verdicts. The verdict is your job, not its job. If you notice it filling in your answer instead of asking the next question, say "back to my framework: what's the criterion you'd evaluate next?" and it should steer back.
Also watch for invented specifics. If it states a numeric value for a planet's mass, temperature, or atmospheric composition with high confidence, verify against the NASA Exoplanet Archive before citing it. The partner is trained to flag uncertainty, but it can still hallucinate specifics under pressure.
Before you go: documentation
At the end of a substantive Planet Hunter conversation, the partner will remind you:
"Before you go: note in your AI Documentation: which habitability criterion did our conversation help you sharpen? And what's one claim I made about your exoplanet that you should verify against NASA Exoplanet Archive or the original peer-reviewed paper?"