Research Digest

Research Digest

Generate structured research briefs from RSS feeds, web sources, and industry publications.

Install

git clone https://github.com/thatrebeccarae/claude-marketing.git && cp -r claude-marketing/skills/research-digest ~/.claude/skills/

Core Capabilities

• Pull from RSS feeds, web search, and curated sources
• Assess source credibility and recency
• Cross-reference findings across multiple sources
• Extract trends, data points, and expert opinions
• Identify counter-arguments and nuance
• Produce actionable research briefs

Workflow

1. Source Collection

Gather raw material from:

• RSS feeds — industry blogs, news sites, newsletters (via any RSS reader/API)
• Web search — targeted queries for recent coverage
• Industry reports — analyst reports, whitepapers, earnings calls
• Social/community — Reddit, Twitter/X, LinkedIn discussions

2. Source Assessment

Evaluate each source on:

3. Synthesis

• Identify convergent themes (3+ sources saying the same thing)
• Flag divergent views (contradictions between sources)
• Extract specific data points with citations
• Note the "so what" — why this matters for the target audience

4. Brief Generation

Produce a structured markdown brief.

Brief Structure

# Research Brief: [Topic]
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Depth:** Quick scan / Standard / Deep dive
**Sources reviewed:** [count]

## Executive Summary
- [Key finding 1]
- [Key finding 2]
- [Key finding 3]

## Key Findings

### Finding 1: [Headline]
[2-3 paragraph analysis with source citations]

### Finding 2: [Headline]
[2-3 paragraph analysis with source citations]

## Data Points
| Metric | Value | Source | Date |
|--------|-------|--------|------|

## Expert Perspectives
- "[Quote]" — [Name, Title, Source]

## Counter-Arguments & Nuance
- [Opposing view with source]

## Content Angles
- [Angle 1: how to use this research in content]
- [Angle 2]

## Sources
1. [Source name] — [URL] — [Credibility: High/Medium/Low]

Options

Quality Standards

1. Minimum 3 independent sources per key finding 2. Recency bias toward last 30 days unless historical context is needed 3. Always include counter-arguments — at least one contrarian or skeptical view 4. Separate facts from opinions — clearly label which is which 5. Link to original sources — never cite without attribution 6. No speculation — if data is missing, say so rather than guessing

For source credibility framework and synthesis methodology, see REFERENCE.md.

Research Digest — Examples

Example 1: Quick Industry Scan

Prompt:

Generate a research brief on the current state of AI in email marketing. Quick scan, last 30 days.

Expected output: Brief with 5-6 key findings:

• Adoption rates of AI-powered subject line optimization
• Key players adding AI features (with specific announcements)
• Performance benchmarks: AI-generated vs. human-written campaigns
• Privacy/regulation concerns around AI personalization
• Content angles: "Most email teams are using AI wrong" or "The AI features worth paying for"
• 6-8 sources cited with credibility tiers

---

Example 2: Deep Dive Topic Research

Prompt:

Deep dive on the impact of iOS privacy changes on DTC customer acquisition costs. Go back 90 days.

Expected output: Comprehensive brief (12+ findings) covering:

• Quantified impact on CPAs across channels (Meta, Google, TikTok)
• Attribution gap data (reported vs. actual conversions)
• First-party data strategies that are working (with case studies)
• Server-side tracking adoption rates
• Expert perspectives from agency leaders and platform reps
• Counter-argument: "Some brands are seeing better performance post-iOS"
• Data tables with CPA trends pre/post iOS changes
• 5-6 content angles with target audience mapping
• 20+ sources across Tier 1-3

---

Example 3: Competitive Intelligence Brief

Prompt:

Research brief on Shopify's recent moves in the B2B commerce space. Standard depth, last 7 days.

Expected output: Brief focused on:

• Recent product announcements or updates
• Partnership or acquisition signals
• Community/developer sentiment (Reddit, Twitter, forums)
• Competitive positioning vs. BigCommerce, Salesforce Commerce Cloud
• Market opportunity sizing for B2B e-commerce
• Expert analysis from e-commerce analysts
• Counter-argument: limitations of Shopify's B2B approach
• 3 content angles: thought leadership, comparison post, tutorial
• 12-15 sources with credibility ratings

Research Digest — Reference

Source Credibility Framework

Tier 1: Primary Research (Highest credibility)

• Peer-reviewed studies and academic papers
• Government/regulatory data (Census, BLS, SEC filings)
• Company earnings reports and SEC filings
• Original surveys with disclosed methodology
• Patent filings

Tier 2: Professional Analysis

• Analyst reports (Gartner, Forrester, McKinsey, etc.)
• Industry association reports
• Major business publications (WSJ, Bloomberg, Reuters)
• Expert interviews and conference talks
• Well-sourced investigative journalism

Tier 3: Industry Commentary

• Industry blogs and newsletters with track record
• Trade publications
• LinkedIn posts from verified practitioners
• Podcast interviews with industry leaders
• Company case studies (note: inherently biased)

Tier 4: Community & Social (Lowest credibility)

• Reddit discussions and Twitter threads
• Quora answers
• YouTube commentary
• Anonymous forum posts
• User reviews and testimonials

Rule: Key findings should be supported by Tier 1 or 2 sources. Tier 3-4 sources are useful for sentiment and emerging trends but should not be cited as primary evidence.

Synthesis Methodology

Convergence Analysis

When 3+ independent sources report the same finding: 1. Note the convergence (strong signal) 2. Check if sources are truly independent (not citing each other) 3. Look for the original primary source 4. Assess if the finding has become "conventional wisdom" (may need challenge)

Divergence Analysis

When sources contradict each other: 1. Identify the specific point of disagreement 2. Check data sources and methodology differences 3. Note potential biases (company-funded research, platform advocacy) 4. Present both views with evidence quality assessment 5. Do NOT resolve the contradiction — present it honestly

Trend Identification

Search Templates

Industry Scan

"[industry] trends 2026"
"[industry] market report"
"[industry] challenges" site:reddit.com
"[technology] adoption" "[industry]"
"[competitor 1] OR [competitor 2]" announcement OR launch

Topic Deep Dive

"[topic]" research OR study OR data
"[topic]" expert OR analyst
"[topic]" "according to" OR "reported that"
"[topic]" criticism OR challenge OR limitation
"[topic]" case study OR example

Competitive Intelligence

"[company]" announcement OR launch OR partnership
"[company]" revenue OR funding OR valuation
"[company]" review OR alternative
"[company]" vs "[competitor]"
site:linkedin.com "[company]" hiring OR role

Citation Format

In-Brief Citation

According to Gartner's 2025 Magic Quadrant report, the CDP market reached $4.2B...

Source List Entry

1. **Gartner** — "Magic Quadrant for Customer Data Platforms, 2025" — https://gartner.com/... — Credibility: Tier 2 (Analyst Report) — Published: 2025-09-15

Data Point Citation

| Market size | $4.2B (2024) | Gartner MQ 2025 | 2025-09 |
| Growth rate | 25% CAGR | IDC Tracker | 2025-06 |

Brief Depth Guide

Quick Scan (15-20 min)

• 5-8 sources reviewed
• 3-5 key findings
• Minimal counter-arguments
• No expert quotes
• Use case: staying current, identifying emerging topics

Standard (30-45 min)

• 10-15 sources reviewed
• 5-8 key findings with analysis
• 2-3 data points per finding
• At least 1 counter-argument
• 2-3 content angles
• Use case: content research, market monitoring

Deep Dive (60-90 min)

• 20+ sources reviewed
• 8-12 key findings with detailed analysis
• 5+ data points with cross-referencing
• Multiple counter-arguments and nuance
• Expert perspectives section
• 4-6 content angles with audience mapping
• Use case: strategic planning, market entry, investment research