Research Start

/research-start

1. Load ~/.codebuddy/plugins/config/legal-workflows/legal-clinic/practice-profile.md → jurisdiction, practice area.
2. Use the workflow below.
3. Frame the issue specifically. Build roadmap: statutory starting points (unverified), case law areas (not cases), secondary sources, search terms.
4. If student has existing research uploaded: synthesize and identify gaps.
5. Output with prominent "leads not authorities" header. Everything is a starting point the student verifies.

/legal-clinic:research-start "habitability defense to nonpayment eviction in [State]"

Research Start: Roadmap, Not Research

Purpose

Legal research is essential to clinical education. But the initial phase — figuring out what to research, finding the right statute, understanding the framework — is often the most time-consuming and least educational part. Students spend hours finding the starting point before they can do the actual research.

This skill produces the starting point: statutes to check, case law areas to investigate, search terms for research platform and research connector. None of it is verified. None of it is authoritative. All of it is a lead for the student to run down.

This is a pedagogical safeguard, not just an ethical one. Students still learn to research. They just start from a better place.

Load context

~/.codebuddy/plugins/config/legal-workflows/legal-clinic/practice-profile.md → jurisdiction (state), practice areas.

Workflow

Step 0: Seed documents first

Before building the roadmap, read the clinic's own seed documents. The supervising attorney uploaded them at cold-start (handbook, filing guides, local court rules, intake forms, example case files, prior memos) — they are pre-vetted, jurisdiction-specific, and will beat any research platform query on the first 20 minutes of a student's research.

1. Read ~/.codebuddy/plugins/config/legal-workflows/legal-clinic/practice-profile.md → ## Seed documents. Identify any item whose purpose or filename matches the research area (e.g., "Alameda UD filing guide" for a UD habitability question; a redacted sample case file in the same practice area; a prior memo on the same issue).
2. For each match, surface it as a Seed documents to read first block at the top of the roadmap output. Name the file, say why it matters for this specific question, and say what it likely covers vs. where outside research will still be needed.
3. If no seed documents match the issue, say so plainly ("No clinic seed documents match this issue — proceeding straight to primary sources"). Don't fabricate a match.
4. If the clinic has the LIMITED DATA flag set in ## Seed documents, add a one-line note: "Clinic has fewer than 10 seed docs; your professor's precedent bank is thin — lean harder on primary sources and flag what's missing for your supervisor."

The roadmap still covers statutes, case law areas, secondary sources, and search terms — seed docs are the first lead, not a replacement for the rest. But surface them above everything else so the student starts where their supervisor's precedent starts.

Step 1: Frame the issue

What's the research question? Be specific. Not "eviction defenses" — "habitability defense to nonpayment eviction in [State], specifically whether a broken heater qualifies and whether the tenant had to give written notice."

If the question is too broad, narrow it with the student: "That's three research questions. Let's take them one at a time. Which first?"

Step 2: Build the roadmap

Statutory starting points: List statutes likely relevant. State explicitly these are likely, not confirmed.

Likely relevant statutes (UNVERIFIED — confirm currency and applicability):

• [State] Landlord-Tenant Act, likely at [State Code Title X] — look for "warranty of habitability" or "repair and deduct"
• Local housing code for [City/County] — may define specific conditions (heat, water) as required
• [VERIFY each citation is current and correct — codes get renumbered]

Case law areas to investigate: Not cases — areas. The student finds the cases.

Case law areas:

• [State] Supreme Court or appellate decisions on implied warranty of habitability — look for the leading case establishing the doctrine
• Cases on what conditions qualify — heat specifically, if any
• Cases on procedural prerequisites — did tenant have to give notice? withhold rent? escrow?
• Cases on the remedy — offset against rent owed, or a separate damages claim?

Regulatory / administrative sources: If applicable (immigration especially).

Administrative sources:

• [Agency] regulations at [CFR cite area]
• Agency guidance or policy manuals — often more current than regs
• For immigration: USCIS Policy Manual, BIA precedent decisions

Secondary sources to orient: Where to get the framework before diving into primary.

Secondary sources (for framework, not to cite):

• [State] practice guide on landlord-tenant (check clinic library)
• Relevant CLE materials
• Law review notes on the specific issue if it's contested

Search terms: For research platform, or whatever the clinic uses.

Search terms to try:

• research platform: "warranty of habitability" /s heat! & [State]
• research connector: implied warranty of habitability AND (heat OR heater) AND [State]
• Refine based on what comes back — these are starting queries

Step 3: Flag what's uncertain

If the skill is unsure whether a source is relevant or current:

[UNCERTAIN: whether [State] has a specific statute on this vs. common-law doctrine only — the search will tell you]

Uncertainty is stated, not hidden.

No silent supplement. This skill produces leads, not authoritative citations — by design, students run the citations down themselves. But if a query to a configured research tool (research platform, research connector) returns few or no results for a specific rule or case, say so and stop. Do NOT manufacture citations from web search or model knowledge to fill a thin result set without asking. Say: "The search returned [N] results from [tool]. Coverage appears thin for [rule]. Options: (1) broaden the search query, (2) try a different research tool, (3) search the web — results will be tagged [web search — verify] and should be checked against a primary source before relying, or (4) stop here and flag the gap for your supervisor. Which would you like?" The supervising attorney decides whether to accept lower-confidence sources.

Source attribution. Tag every suggested citation with where it came from: [research platform], [research connector], [Fastcase], or the MCP tool name for citations retrieved from a legal research connector; [web search — verify] for web-search citations; [model knowledge — verify] for citations recalled from training data; [user provided] for citations supplied by the supervising attorney or case file. Citations tagged verify carry higher fabrication risk and should be checked first. Never strip or collapse the tags — they tell the student which leads are raw research and which are model guesses to verify against a primary source.

Step 4: Synthesize uploaded research (if any)

If the student has already done some research and uploads it: read it, identify what's covered and what's missing.

From your research so far:

• You have: [summary of what's covered]
• Gap: [what the roadmap above suggests that you haven't found yet]
• [VERIFY: the case you cited — [name] — run through a citator (verify it is good law) it, it may have been distinguished or limited]

Output

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
  RESEARCH ROADMAP — LEADS, NOT AUTHORITIES
  Nothing below is a verified citation. Every statute, every case area,
  every search term is a starting point for YOUR research. You verify
  currency, applicability, and accuracy. You find the actual cases.
  If something below turns out to be wrong or outdated, that's expected —
  this is a map of where to look, not a substitute for looking.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

# Research Roadmap: [Issue]

**Jurisdiction:** [State] | **Practice area:** [area]

## Seed documents to read first

[Per Step 0. List any clinic seed docs that match the issue with a one-line
"what this likely covers" note. If none matched: "No clinic seed documents
match this issue — proceeding to primary sources."]

## Statutory starting points (UNVERIFIED)

[list with VERIFY flags]

## Case law areas to investigate

[areas, not cases]

## Administrative / regulatory sources

[if applicable]

## Secondary sources (for framework, not citation)

[list]

## Search terms

**research platform:** [queries]

## Uncertainty flags

[Everywhere the roadmap is genuinely unsure]

---

## What to do with this

1. Start with a secondary source to get the framework
2. Find and read the primary statutes — confirm the citations above are current
3. Run the searches, find the leading cases
4. run through a citator (verify it is good law) everything before relying on it
5. Come back and run `/memo` to scaffold your analysis once you have the rule

## What this roadmap does NOT do

- **It does not give you citations you can use.** Every cite above is a lead
  to verify, not an authority to rely on.
- **It does not do the research.** You do the research. This gets you to the
  starting line faster.
- **It does not replace research platform.** Those have the actual cases. This
  tells you where to point them.

---

**Cite verification — required before use.** Citations above were generated by an AI model and have not been verified. Before relying on any case, statute, or rule — or including it in client work — run it through research platform, Fastcase, research connector, or your clinic's research platform for accuracy and current good-law status. Flag unverified citations to your supervisor.

What this skill does NOT do

• Provide authoritative citations. Explicitly, by design. The student verifies every cite before using it.
• Replace legal research. Accelerates the "where do I start" phase; the research itself is still the student's.
• Guarantee the roadmap is complete. It's a starting set of leads. The research may reveal sources the roadmap missed — that's fine, that's research.

Close with the next-steps decision tree

End with the next-steps decision tree per practice-profile.md ## Outputs. Customize the options to what this skill just produced — the five default branches (draft the X, escalate, get more facts, watch and wait, something else) are a starting point, not a lock-in. The tree is the output; the lawyer picks.