braindump

name	braindump
description	Capture links, thoughts, and a thesis for a blog post, then research and structure them into a writing brief. Use when starting a new blog post.
argument-hint	["topic-slug"]
allowed-tools	Bash, Read, Write, Edit, WebSearch, WebFetch, AskUserQuestion

Braindump — Blog Post Research & Brief

Turn scattered links, thoughts, and a thesis into a structured writing brief.

Copy this checklist and track progress:

Braindump Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Gather inputs (thesis, links, thoughts, audience)
- [ ] Step 2: Research (fetch sources, web search, find prevailing narrative)
- [ ] Step 3: Produce the brief (thesis, outline, evidence, gaps)
- [ ] Step 4: Review with user and iterate

Guiding Principles

• Be pragmatic. Every assertion in the brief should be backed by evidence — a source, a data point, a named example. Flag anything that's currently opinion-only.
• Find the contrarian angle. Before structuring, identify the prevailing narrative on this topic. Surface it explicitly so the author can decide how to push against it.
• Identify where personal experience is required. The best parts of Ben's essays are grounded in specific things he's done. Aggressively flag where a personal anecdote or data point would strengthen the argument.

Reference Files

Before gathering inputs, read these for context on the author's background:

• .claude/skills/draft-post/AUTHOR_PROFILE.md — Career history, expertise, core beliefs
• ~/Projects/interview_documents/stories/ — Detailed stories (Dradis, LLM Match Quality, ASK'EM, Connections, Component Platform, Layoff Leadership) that may contain relevant anecdotes

Use these when identifying gaps that need personal experience.

Step 1: Gather Inputs

Ask the user (one AskUserQuestion with up to 4 questions):

1. What's your thesis? — The core argument or point you want to make, in a sentence or two.
2. What links/sources do you have? — Paste URLs, article titles, tweets, whatever you've collected.
3. What are your rough thoughts? — Bullet points, fragments, half-formed arguments — anything in your head.
4. Who's the audience? — Tech leaders? Developers? General? (Default: technical professionals who follow AI/data/product trends.)

Step 2: Research

For each link the user provided:

• Fetch the page content with WebFetch
• Extract the key claims, data points, and quotable passages
• Note the author and publication date

Then do supplementary research:

• WebSearch for 3-5 additional sources that support, complicate, or counter the thesis
• Specifically search for: concrete data/stats, named examples (companies, people, projects), counterarguments worth addressing
• Fetch and extract key content from the best 2-3 additional sources found

Also search for the prevailing narrative on this topic:

• What do most people currently believe about this?
• What's the "default take" that shows up in mainstream tech discourse?
• Surface this explicitly — it's the thing the post should either challenge, complicate, or reframe.

Step 3: Produce the Brief

The brief is NOT a rigid template. It should capture four things in whatever format feels natural for the topic:

1. Thesis — The refined core argument, informed by research. If the evidence changed the thesis, say so.
2. Outline — The narrative arc and key sections. Not headers-and-bullets, but the story: what hooks the reader, what builds the argument, what addresses skeptics, what leaves them with.
3. Evidence — All sources organized by which argument they support. For each: source name, key quote or data point, URL. Flag the strongest 2-3 pieces.
4. Gaps — Things the thesis claims that don't yet have evidence. Places where Ben's personal experience would make the argument land. Counterarguments that need a response. Be specific: "You claim X but the only evidence is Y — do you have a story from Indeed/Zencohen/Vibescaffold that proves this?"

Also include:

• Prevailing narrative — What most people currently think about this topic, so the author can see what they're pushing against.
• Source library — Simple table of all sources with URLs for reference during drafting.

Create the directory src/content/writing/<slug>/ if it doesn't exist, then save to src/content/writing/<slug>/BRIEF.md. Verify the file was written by reading back the first 5 lines.

Error Handling

Situation	Action
Link is unreachable, paywalled, or returns an error	Note it in the source library as "[unavailable]" and WebSearch for cached or alternate versions of the same content
WebSearch returns nothing relevant	Note the gap and move on — don't fabricate sources. Flag it in the Gaps section
AUTHOR_PROFILE.md not found	Proceed without it but note that gap identification for personal experience will be weaker

Step 4: Review with User

Present the brief to the user. Ask:

• Does the thesis still feel right after seeing the evidence?
• Are there arguments or sources missing?
• Any of the gaps you can fill in right now?

Iterate on the brief based on feedback before considering it done.

Output

The final brief at src/content/writing/<slug>/BRIEF.md, ready for /draft-post.