Blog Research Skill

Research legal technology topics for alt-counsel blog posts with Singapore/ASEAN prioritization and jurisdictional awareness.

When to Use This Skill

Trigger this skill when the user requests:

• "Research [topic] for my blog post"
• "Find sources on [legal tech topic]"
• "Fact-check: [claim]"
• "Get statistics on [topic]"
• "Find expert opinions on [subject]"
• Any research task related to blog content creation

Research Workflow

Step 0: Verify Research Readiness

Before beginning research, confirm the post has:

Required inputs:

• Locked thesis - One-sentence argument the post will make
• Section outline - 3-5 main sections with their specific claims
• Evidence gaps - Specific claims that need external validation

Stop and ask user if missing:

• "I see you want research on [topic], but I don't have your post outline yet."
• "Which specific claims in your post need evidence?"
• "What are you trying to prove with this research?"

Why this matters: Research without structure leads to gathering interesting information that doesn't make the final cut. Lock the argument first, research second.

Step 1: Understand the Research Need

Critical question: What needs external validation vs what's personal experience?

Ask user to categorize each post section:

• Personal experience (✍️) - No research needed, this is your story
• Needs validation (🔍) - Your claim needs external support
• Needs context (🌍) - Your experience needs broader context

Example:

• Section 2: "My 3-page prompt experience" = ✍️ (don't research this)
• Section 3: "Agents changed in Sept 2025" = 🔍 (needs validation)
• Section 4: "Singapore firms struggling too" = 🌍 (needs regional context)

Only research the 🔍 and 🌍 sections.

If the post folder is ambiguous, ask the user to specify (e.g., posts/contract-automation-tools/).

Step 2: Read Reference Files

Before conducting research, read:

1. references/trusted-sources.md - Know which sources to prioritize
2. references/regional-considerations.md - Understand Singapore/ASEAN vs US/EU differences

These files provide critical context for effective research.

Step 2.5: Generate Research Brief for Approval

Before conducting searches, output a research brief:

# Research Brief: [Post Title]

**Locked thesis:** [One sentence]

**Evidence needed:**
1. Section X: [Specific claim] 
   - Searching for: [What evidence would support this]
   - Stop criteria: [When I have enough]
   
2. Section Y: [Specific claim]
   - Searching for: [Evidence needed]
   - Stop criteria: [When sufficient]

**Not researching:**
- Section Z: Personal experience (no validation needed)

**Estimated searches:** [Number based on sections]
**Stop when:** All sections adequately supported OR regional sources exhausted

Ask user: "Does this match what you need? Or should I adjust before starting searches?"

This creates the checkpoint you're currently missing.

## Integration with Your Workflow

Based on your process patterns, here's how the improved skill would work:

### Current Problem (AI Tools Post):

Session 1: Broad research on MCP, CLI patterns, everything Session 2: More research on security, failures, Singapore (exploratory) Session 6: Cut 2/3 of research as redundant/not fitting

= 3 sessions, high waste

### With Improved Skill:

Session 1:

• User: "I want to research for AI tools post"
• Skill: "What's your locked outline? Which sections need evidence?"
• User: Provides 3 sections that need validation
• Skill: Generates research brief targeting those 3 specific claims
• User: Approves brief
• Skill: Executes focused research (6-9 searches, not 20+)
• Output: Evidence mapped directly to 3 sections

= 1 session, minimal waste

Step 3: Conduct Research

Use web_search following this priority order:

Search Strategy:

1. Singapore/ASEAN-first search - Add "Singapore" or "ASEAN" qualifiers to queries
2. Evaluate regional results - Check if findings are regionally relevant
3. Expand to global sources - If regional sources insufficient, search without geographic qualifiers
4. Flag jurisdictional concerns - Note when findings are US/EU-centric

Search Tactics:

• Start with 3-5 searches minimum (regional → global)
• Use web_fetch to read full articles from promising results
• Extract specific data points, quotes, and citations
• Cross-reference information across multiple sources

Search Depth (Evidence-Driven):

• Per section claim: 2-3 searches minimum

  • Stop when: Claim is supported by 2+ credible sources OR you've exhausted regional sources

• Total research session: Based on outline

  • 3 sections with specific claims = 6-9 searches
  • Stop when: All sections have adequate evidence OR regional sources exhausted

Red flag: If doing 10+ searches and outline still has evidence gaps, the problem is likely the outline (claims too broad/unsupported), not insufficient research.

Step 4: Evaluate Sources

Apply source evaluation criteria from references/trusted-sources.md:

1. Recency - Prefer sources from last 6-24 months for trends/pricing
2. Regional relevance - Singapore/ASEAN > Global > US/EU-specific
3. Credibility - Established publications > vendor blogs
4. Specificity - Actual data/examples > general claims
5. Independence - Journalism > vendor marketing

Step 5: Apply Regional Lens

For EVERY finding, assess:

• Is this Singapore/ASEAN-relevant?
• Is this US/EU-centric? If so, what differs locally?
• What's the alt-counsel angle (resource-constrained perspective)?

Flag jurisdictional concerns using the protocol from references/regional-considerations.md.

Step 6: Map Findings to Post Structure

For EACH section in the user's outline, identify:

• Section X claim: [The specific point this section makes]
• Evidence needed: [What this claim requires for support]
• Findings that support: [Which research findings apply here]
• Findings that don't fit: [Interesting but not relevant to this section]

Red flag if: You have 5+ findings that don't map to any section. Action: Ask user: "I found [X], but it doesn't support your outlined sections. Should I continue researching or is this exploratory?"

Quality check: Every finding should answer "Which section needs this?"

Step 7: Format Research Output

Load assets/research-template.md and populate it with findings:

Required sections:

• Summary - 2-3 sentence executive summary
• Key Findings - Detailed findings with sources and regional context icons
• Statistics & Data Points - Specific data with citations
• Expert Quotes - Direct quotes from credible sources
• Jurisdictional Flags - US/EU-centric content flagged with explanations
• Alt-Counsel Angle - How findings relate to blog's resource-conscious mission
• Additional Sources - Links for follow-up research

Citation format:

• Source: Article Title - [Publication]
• Date: [Publication date]
• Regional Context: ✅ Singapore/ASEAN | ⚠️ US/EU-centric | 🌍 Global

Step 8: Save Research Output

Create research.md in the specified post folder:

• Path format: posts/[post-folder-name]/research.md
• Always confirm the post folder path with the user if ambiguous

Regional Prioritization Rules

Always prioritize:

1. Straits Times, Channel News Asia for Singapore news
2. Artificial Lawyer for global legal tech (but flag when US/EU-centric)
3. Singapore government sources (Courts, Legal Service, IMDA)
4. ASEAN business and legal publications

Always flag when:

• Information is US/EU-specific (ethics rules, regulations, market dynamics)
• Pricing assumes enterprise budgets
• Solutions require infrastructure uncommon in ASEAN
• No Singapore/ASEAN-specific information available

Quality Standards

Good research includes:

• Minimum 5-8 quality sources cited
• Mix of regional and global perspectives
• Specific statistics with dates
• Expert quotes from credible sources
• Clear jurisdictional flags where relevant
• Alt-counsel angle articulated

Bad research avoids:

• Vendor marketing without independent validation
• Outdated sources (>2 years old for trends)
• Pure US content without regional context
• Vague claims without specific examples
• Missing citations or broken links

Example Research Queries

Fact-check query:

"Fact-check: Contract lifecycle management systems typically cost $50K+ for enterprises"

Workflow: Search for CLM pricing, gather data points from multiple sources, note regional pricing if available, flag if US-centric pricing, provide alt-counsel perspective on accessible alternatives.

Topic research query:

"Research AI document review tools for small legal teams"

Workflow: Search for AI document review tools, prioritize solutions for small teams, compare pricing tiers, find Singapore/ASEAN adoption examples, flag enterprise-only solutions, identify practical alternatives.

Statistics query:

"Get statistics on legal tech adoption in Singapore law firms"

Workflow: Search Singapore-specific legal tech adoption data, check Law Society publications, look for regional surveys, note data gaps, compare to global trends where relevant.

Bundled Resources

References

• trusted-sources.md - Curated list of reliable legal tech sources
• regional-considerations.md - Singapore/ASEAN vs US/EU differences guide

Assets

• research-template.md - Standard format for research.md output