casemark/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