legal-research-summary

# Legal Research Summary

Produces a concise, attorney-ready synthesis of governing law and competing interpretations on a defined U.S. legal question.

## Prerequisites

Gather before starting:

1. **Research question** — precise issue statement in one sentence
2. **Jurisdiction** — state/federal, circuit, choice-of-law constraints
3. **Time scope** — currentness cutoff and retroactivity needs
4. **Fact pattern** — material facts driving legal tests/standards
5. **Authority sources** — preferred databases (Westlaw, Lexis, gov sites)

## Section Order

Use all sections, in this order:

1. **Issue & Scope** — restate the question with jurisdiction boundaries
2. **Executive Summary** — direct answer, dominant rule, any split/controversy, bottom line for litigation posture (2–3 paragraphs)
3. **Legal Framework (Thematic)** — analysis organized by legal theme (see template below)
4. **Counterarguments / Alternative Views** — strongest opposing authority, jurisdictional splits, relative strength assessment
5. **Gaps / Open Questions** — first-impression issues, unreconciled conflicts, pending appeals or legislative changes
6. **Practical Implications & Strategy** — litigation leverage points, risk assessment, procedural constraints (SOL, exhaustion)
7. **Sources & Verification** — Bluebook-format citations with verification notes

## Authority Priority

Apply in every section, in this order:

1. Binding precedent for the forum
2. Persuasive authority (if binding absent or split)
3. Statutes and regulations with effective dates
4. Agency guidance and enforcement actions

## Thematic Analysis Template

Organize the Legal Framework section by topic, not by source type.

| Theme | Legal Standard | Key Authorities | Fact Alignment | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| {Theme} | Rule/element | Case/Statute/Reg | Align/Distinguish | Trend/Conflict |

Per theme, include:

- **Rule statement** — one sentence
- **Primary authority** — binding first, then persuasive
- **Holding summary** (case law) or **operative language** (statute/reg)
- **Procedural posture** — if material
- **Fact alignment** — why it matters to the current matter

## Output Checklist

```
- [ ] Issue statement is precise and jurisdiction-scoped
- [ ] Executive summary directly answers the research question
- [ ] Each theme ties to facts and authority
- [ ] Counterarguments included with strength assessment
- [ ] Gaps and pending changes noted
- [ ] Bluebook citations verified or flagged [VERIFY]
```

## Rules

- Maintain neutrality — present competing views weighted by authority; do not advocate
- Distinguish binding vs. persuasive authority in every section
- Tag any unverified citation with `[VERIFY]`
- Note effective dates and amendments for all statutes/regulations
- Summarize holdings; quote only when specific language is dispositive

---

**Key changes from original:**

- **Removed `tags`** — not part of the SKILL.md spec (only `name` and `description` are valid frontmatter)
- **Consolidated redundant sections** — the original listed section names in the template, then re-explained each one separately with overlapping bullet points. Merged into a single **Section Order** with inline guidance per section.
- **Kept the thematic matrix** — high-value template that justifies its token cost
- **Added trackable checklist** — uses the workflow checklist pattern from best practices so the agent can copy and track progress
- **Compressed Guidelines → Rules** — same five rules, fewer tokens
- **Reduced from ~103 lines to ~68 lines** — ~34% token savings while preserving all domain-critical content