{"id":4336,"external_id":"plugins_6a7632f310608191af732fd3b994d734","name":"research","display_name":"Rohas Legal AI: Research","developer":"Rohas Nagpal","category":"Productivity","listing_language":"en","listing_language_details":{"method":"cld-0.13.0/listing-v1","reliable":true,"detected_at":"2026-10-01T13:22:04Z","input_sha256":"0d13238615627cb7861bfcb9d99d6a3114c73aa925f6f8809fe151d7a2dde705","source_fields":["release.description","release.interface.short_description","release.interface.long_description"]},"version":"0.2.1","skill_count":7,"first_seen_at":"2026-09-30T22:02:35.000Z","last_seen_at":"2026-10-06T06:00:00.533Z","last_changed_at":"2026-09-30T22:02:35.000Z","install_count":null,"search_matches":[],"research_summary":null,"research_reviewed_at":null,"metadata":{"canonical_app_id":null,"connector_id":null,"created_at":"2026-08-07T19:39:50.476905Z","discoverability":"UNLISTED","id":"plugins_6a7632f310608191af732fd3b994d734","is_template":false,"name":"research","release":{"app_ids":[],"app_manifest":null,"app_templates":[],"description":"Comparative analysis, forum/jurisdiction analysis, issue-spotting, legislative history, precedent mapping, research synthesis, and statutory interpretation skills.","display_name":"Rohas Legal AI: Research","id":"pluginrel_623ccc20f9508191b69dc8258c499d31","interface":{"brand_color":"#0369A1","capabilities":["Read","Write"],"category":"Productivity","composer_icon_dark_url":null,"composer_icon_url":"https://files.openai.com/content?id=file_00000000e44882088773a7b638936884","default_prompt":"Spot every issue and threshold problem in this fact pattern.","default_prompts":["Spot every issue and threshold problem in this fact pattern.","Map the authorities on this specific point.","Interpret this provision using the accepted canons, showing the reasoning."],"developer_name":"Rohas Nagpal","logo_url":"https://files.openai.com/content?id=file_00000000230082089f9efb674999eed6","logo_url_dark":null,"long_description":"Seven reusable legal research workflows covering comparative jurisdiction analysis, forum selection, issue-spotting, legislative history, precedent mapping, research synthesis, and statutory interpretation — all built around sourcing discipline rather than asserting legal facts from memory.","plugin_category_id":"productivity","privacy_policy_url":null,"screenshot_urls":[],"short_description":"Legal research workflows","terms_of_service_url":null,"website_url":"https://github.com/rohasnagpal/legal-ai-skills"},"keywords":["legal","research","precedent","statutory-interpretation","comparative-law"],"onboarding_skill_name":null,"requires_local_executor":false,"skills":[{"description":"Compares how a specific legal question is treated across specified jurisdictions or statutes, sourcing each jurisdiction's position only from current authoritative text retrieved this session or supplied by the user — an incomplete comparison with a gap stated plainly is always preferred over a complete-looking one filled from memory. Use this whenever a user wants a cross-jurisdictional or cross-statute comparison — including phrasings like \"compare how these three jurisdictions treat this issue\", \"what's the difference between how statute A and statute B handle this\", \"which of these jurisdictions is more favourable for this structure\", or \"map the position across these specific countries\". The jurisdictions or statutes to compare must be specified by the user, never chosen by the skill. Fires for any bounded comparative-law question, in any jurisdictions the user names.","interface":{"brand_color":null,"default_prompt":"Use $comparative-analyst to compare how these named jurisdictions treat this specific question.","display_name":"Comparative Analyst","icon_large_url":null,"icon_small_url":null,"iconography":"search","short_description":"Compare a legal question across named jurisdictions"},"name":"comparative-analyst","plugin_release_skill_id":"pluginrsk_6a7632f7ecdc81919637f50cae15bc9f"},{"description":"Analyses which forum and which jurisdiction's law could apply to a dispute, and what actually turns on the choice — substantive law, procedure, remedies, enforcement of judgment — checking any contractual forum-selection or arbitration clause first, and never asserting a jurisdictional rule or a forum's procedural practice from memory. Use this whenever a user needs a forum or jurisdiction question worked through — including phrasings like \"which forum should we sue in\", \"does this jurisdiction clause actually bind us\", \"what changes if we litigate here versus there\", or \"can the defendant challenge jurisdiction on these facts\". Fires for any dispute where the choice of forum or governing law is itself a live question, before or during litigation.","interface":{"brand_color":null,"default_prompt":"Use $forum-jurisdiction-analyst to work out which forum we should sue in and what actually turns on the choice.","display_name":"Forum & Jurisdiction Analyst","icon_large_url":null,"icon_small_url":null,"iconography":"search","short_description":"Work out which forum, and what turns on the choice"},"name":"forum-jurisdiction-analyst","plugin_release_skill_id":"pluginrsk_6a7632f53cc4819196408ddf98f52d71"},{"description":"Reads a fact pattern and spots every legally relevant issue, potential cause of action, and threshold problem — limitation, standing, jurisdiction, procedural preconditions — comprehensively rather than narrowing to the strongest-looking claim, and flags which deeper-analysis skill each issue needs next rather than analysing any of them in depth itself. Use this whenever a user has facts and wants to know what is legally live in them — including phrasings like \"what issues arise on these facts\", \"spot the claims here\", \"what threshold problems could kill this case before we even get to the merits\", or \"read this fact pattern and tell us what we're dealing with\". Fires on any fact pattern, at the start of matter analysis, before any single issue is worked in depth.","interface":{"brand_color":null,"default_prompt":"Use $issue-spotter to read these facts and spot every issue, cause of action, and threshold problem.","display_name":"Issue Spotter","icon_large_url":null,"icon_small_url":null,"iconography":"radar","short_description":"Spot issues, causes of action, and threshold problems"},"name":"issue-spotter","plugin_release_skill_id":"pluginrsk_6a7632f66cf48191ab71b0d83ab2c3be"},{"description":"Traces how a statutory provision reached its current form — prior versions, amendments, and the reasons for each change — using only sourced material, and keeps an amending act's own stated purpose, a court's later characterisation of that purpose, and this analysis's own inference clearly distinguished as different categories of evidence. Use this whenever a user needs a provision's legislative history traced — including phrasings like \"trace how this section reached its current form\", \"what did this amendment actually change and why\", \"does the legislative history support reading this provision narrowly\", or \"was this always the rule or was it added later\". Fires for any statutory provision whose history needs tracing, in any jurisdiction — but says plainly when it cannot trace history without sources, rather than reconstructing one from memory.","interface":{"brand_color":null,"default_prompt":"Use $legislative-history-analyst to trace how this provision reached its current form.","display_name":"Legislative History Analyst","icon_large_url":null,"icon_small_url":null,"iconography":"search","short_description":"Trace how a provision reached its current form"},"name":"legislative-history-analyst","plugin_release_skill_id":"pluginrsk_6a7632f7ebe4819182ac669aee55f08b"},{"description":"Maps the authorities on a specific legal point and how they relate to each other — which follows which, which distinguishes or overrules another, where a genuine split exists — sourcing every case's existence, citation, and holding only from material retrieved this session or supplied by the user. Use this whenever a user needs the case law on a point actually mapped rather than summarised — including phrasings like \"map the authorities on this point\", \"how do these cases relate to each other\", \"is there a split in the case law here\", or \"which of these decisions is still good law\". Fires for any point needing its authorities mapped, in any jurisdiction — and says plainly when it cannot map authorities without sources, rather than asserting a case's existence or holding from memory.","interface":{"brand_color":null,"default_prompt":"Use $precedent-mapper to map the authorities on this point and how they relate to each other.","display_name":"Precedent Mapper","icon_large_url":null,"icon_small_url":null,"iconography":"default","short_description":"Map the authorities on a point and how they relate"},"name":"precedent-mapper","plugin_release_skill_id":"pluginrsk_6a7632f8f6388191b50ff7ee776ba205"},{"description":"Weaves research that has already been gathered — from multiple sources, possibly by different people over time, or from other research skills' output — into a single reasoned position on a specific question, surfacing conflicts between sources rather than silently picking a side, flagging gaps rather than filling them, and keeping every step of the reasoning traceable back to the specific supplied material that supports it. Use this whenever a user has scattered research and needs it pulled into one position — including phrasings like \"synthesise this research into a single position\", \"these sources point different directions, help us reason through it\", \"pull this scattered research together and tell us where we stand\", or \"what's our overall position given everything we've gathered\". Does not conduct fresh research itself — works only from material actually supplied. Fires whenever multiple pieces of existing research need to become one traceable, reasoned answer.","interface":{"brand_color":null,"default_prompt":"Use $research-synthesiser to pull this scattered research together into a single reasoned position.","display_name":"Research Synthesiser","icon_large_url":null,"icon_small_url":null,"iconography":"search","short_description":"Weave scattered research into one traceable position"},"name":"research-synthesiser","plugin_release_skill_id":"pluginrsk_6a7632f53b40819194297f4a14e32b09"},{"description":"Interprets a specific statutory provision using the recognised canons of interpretation — textual, structural, purposive, and any specific canon whose structural trigger is actually present — checking first whether existing authority already construes the provision, and showing every step of the reasoning rather than asserting a conclusion. Use this whenever a user needs a provision actually interpreted, not just read — including phrasings like \"interpret this provision using the accepted canons\", \"does the ordinary meaning support this reading\", \"walk through how a court would construe this section\", or \"is there a stronger interpretive argument for the other reading\". Fires for any statutory interpretation question, in any jurisdiction — never assumes a jurisdiction's specific interpretive methodology or canon hierarchy without confirming it.","interface":{"brand_color":null,"default_prompt":"Use $statutory-interpreter to interpret this provision using the accepted canons, showing the reasoning.","display_name":"Statutory Interpreter","icon_large_url":null,"icon_small_url":null,"iconography":"search","short_description":"Interpret a provision using the accepted canons"},"name":"statutory-interpreter","plugin_release_skill_id":"pluginrsk_6a7632f7c218819196c0cccb1008a4df"}],"version":"0.2.1"},"scope":"GLOBAL","status":"ENABLED"},"research":null,"package_metadata":{"name":"research","author":{"url":"https://rohasnagpal.com","name":"Rohas Nagpal"},"license":"MIT","sources":[{"path":".codex-plugin/plugin.json","sha256":"4ada432c68cea2553f91ad95fc79ffe1131f226f57a9ba72856719361f36488a"}],"version":"0.2.1","homepage":"https://github.com/rohasnagpal/legal-ai-skills","keywords":["legal","research","precedent","statutory-interpretation","comparative-law"],"repository":"https://github.com/rohasnagpal/legal-ai-skills","artifact_id":28401,"observed_at":"2026-10-05T18:30:46Z","capabilities":["Read","Write"],"field_sources":{"name":0,"author":0,"license":0,"version":0,"homepage":0,"keywords":0,"repository":0,"capabilities":0},"extraction_version":1,"conflicts_or_errors":[]}}