Prompts that work

Research question
[One or two sentences. Name the claim, the rule or statute number if you know it, and what you need to show.]

Read first
Read CLAUDE.md and FACTS_OF_RECORD.md. Check citation_log.md so you do not repeat work or use anything on the do-not-cite list.

Governing law
[State what governs, for example federal law plus the law of STATE. Quote the order or clause that says so.]

Courts to search, in this order
1. [State's highest court]
2. [Each intermediate appellate court in the state]
3. [State procedure code and court rules]
4. [Federal circuit that covers the state]
5. [Federal trial courts in the state]
Name the matching state rule beside any federal rule you cite.

Budget
Up to [N] searches and [N] reads in total. Spend about [N] on state authority and [N] on federal. Do not let federal results use up the state share. Stop and report when you hit a cap.

Method
1. List every way the issue could be phrased, including the other side's wording and the opposite posture.
2. Search the controlling rule or statute number before keywords.
3. For each key case, check the newest cases that cite it.
4. Check the official court sites for recent decisions.

Verification rules
- Names from the web or from another AI are leads only. Mark them UNVERIFIED until you read the full opinion.
- For each case, give the name, cite, court, date, a two or three sentence holding, and one exact quote with the pincite.
- Say which source you used to get the full text.
- Save each verified opinion to Case Law/verified/, add a row to _MANIFEST.md, and add the case to citation_log.md under today's date.
- Never write "no case exists." Write "not found using these framings and these sweeps."

Output
Write the memo to [path, for example Research/memo-topic.md]. Grade the top results A, B, or C. End with a section called "Not searched" and a list of the cases I should read in full next.

Do not
Do not give a strategy recommendation. Do not cite anything you have not read. Do not use a date filter on name searches.

Check every citation in [path to draft].

For each case, statute, or rule cited
1. Find it in citation_log.md. If it is not on the verified list, say so.
2. Open the saved copy in Case Law/verified/. If there is no saved copy, say so.
3. Confirm the cite resolves to a real case with the right name, court, and year.
4. Check each quotation against the saved text. Report any word that differs.
5. Check each pincite against the page breaks in the saved text.
6. Say whether the opinion actually supports the sentence it is cited for. Quote the part that does, or say that it does not.
7. Report the treatment verdict from the log and its date.

For each record cite
1. Open the page in the extracted text and confirm it says what the sentence claims.
2. Flag any range, and any cite with no page number.

Output
Write a table to [path, for example Research/cite-check-draftname.md] with one row per cite and these columns: cite, in log (yes or no), saved copy (yes or no), quote matches, pincite matches, supports the sentence, treatment verdict, problem.

Rules
Do not fix the draft. Do not guess at a missing cite. If you cannot confirm something, write UNVERIFIED and say why. End with a list of anything in the draft that looks like a legal authority but was not on my list.

Read [path to draft] and FACTS_OF_RECORD.md.

Act as the other side's best representative. Argue the strongest case against this draft.

Do this
1. State the three strongest arguments against my position. Rank them.
2. For each, say which facts in FACTS_OF_RECORD.md they would use, with the paragraph number.
3. Find any place where my draft says something my own record does not support.
4. Find any place where my draft is inconsistent with itself or with an earlier statement in the record.
5. Name the questions they would ask me at a hearing, and what answer the record forces me to give.
6. Say which of my authorities they would attack, and how.
7. Tell me what the other side would want me to concede.

Output
Write to [path, for example Review/opposing-review.md]. Keep it plain and short.

Rules
Do not soften the points. Do not tell me what I should do about them. Do not invent facts or cases. If you rely on a case, say it is from the verified list or mark it UNVERIFIED. Finish with what you could not assess from the files you were given.

Fact check [path to draft] against FACTS_OF_RECORD.md and EVIDENCE_INDEX.md.

For every factual statement in the draft
1. Find the matching paragraph in FACTS_OF_RECORD.md. Give the paragraph number.
2. Open the underlying document in the extracted text. Give the exact page (for example the stamped page number).
3. Quote the words on that page that support the statement.
4. Say whether the statement is SUPPORTED, PARTLY SUPPORTED, UNSUPPORTED, or CONTRADICTED.
5. If the statement uses a number, date, or name, check each one separately.

Also check
- Any record cite that is a range or has no page number.
- Any quotation from a recording. Confirm it comes from the raw original and not from a cleaned version.
- Any fact in the draft that is not in FACTS_OF_RECORD.md. List it. Do not add it yourself.

Output
Write a table to [path, for example Review/fact-check-draftname.md] with columns: statement, facts paragraph, page cite, supporting quote, verdict. Put all problems at the top.

Rules
Do not edit the draft. Do not guess. If you cannot find support, say UNSUPPORTED. Report anything you did not check.