news-topic-monitor-brief

News Topic Monitor Brief

What This Skill Does

Produces a structured monitoring brief that tells a reporter or editor exactly what to watch, where to watch it, and how often — so a developing story never slips through unnoticed.

When To Use This Skill

• You are following a long-running story (a court case, a policy process, a public health situation) and need to set up a systematic watching routine
• An editor has asked you to "keep an eye on" a topic but hasn't defined what that means in practice
• You are handing a beat off to a colleague and need to document the monitoring sources and signals
• You are preparing to cover a predictable future event (an election, a budget announcement, a corporate earnings season) and want a tracking plan in place before it begins

What You Need To Provide

Required: The topic or story you are monitoring (one clear sentence describing it); the time horizon (days, weeks, months); your role (staff reporter, freelancer, editor, researcher)

Optional: Geographic scope; any sources or outlets you are already tracking; specific sub-angles you want flagged; how you will receive alerts (email, Slack, RSS, manual checks)

How the Assistant Approaches This

1. Defines the story's core monitoring questions — the specific developments that would constitute news — so you know what a meaningful update looks like versus routine noise
2. Maps the landscape of sources into tiers: primary sources (official statements, public records, direct contacts), secondary sources (specialist outlets, trade press, academic or NGO trackers), and ambient signals (social media, aggregators, court filings)
3. Recommends a checking cadence for each tier based on how fast the story moves, then packages everything as a one-page brief you can pin to your desk or share with a colleague

Output Format

A single-page brief, structured in four labelled sections: Story Summary (two sentences on what you are tracking and why), Key Monitoring Questions (four to six bullet points describing the specific developments you want to catch), Source Map (a tiered table listing each source, what signal to look for, and how often to check it), and Alert Thresholds (plain-language descriptions of what would justify an immediate story, a follow-up, or simply an internal note). Plain prose and tables throughout. No jargon. Fits on one printed page.

Quality Criteria

• Every monitoring question is specific enough that a colleague with no prior knowledge of the story could check it independently
• The source map covers at least three distinct source types and includes at least one primary source (official or on-record)
• Checking cadences are realistic for the stated time horizon — not so frequent they are unworkable, not so infrequent they risk missing a break
• Alert thresholds distinguish clearly between "file a story now," "note for next weekly review," and "no action needed"
• No sources named are specific real-world publications, people, or proprietary databases that could become outdated or identifiable

Example

Input

Topic: A national government has announced a review of regulations governing online food delivery platforms, following a series of worker safety incidents. The review is expected to run for six months and produce binding recommendations. I am covering this as a labour and employment reporter. I need a monitoring plan for the full duration of the review.

Time horizon: Six months.

Role: Staff reporter at a general-interest national news outlet.

Geographic scope: Domestic (one country, no international comparison needed at this stage).

Output

---

STORY SUMMARY

The government has launched a formal six-month regulatory review of online food delivery platforms, triggered by a cluster of worker safety incidents. The review will produce binding policy recommendations. This brief sets out what to watch, where, and how often for the duration.

---

KEY MONITORING QUESTIONS

• Has the review committee published interim findings, consultation documents, or call-for-submissions notices?
• Have any platforms, unions, or worker advocacy groups made formal submissions to the review — and what positions are they taking?
• Have any new worker safety incidents occurred involving delivery platform workers during the review period?
• Has the government signalled any change in its expected timeline, scope, or committee membership?
• Are opposition parties, labour regulators, or employer associations publicly responding to the review's direction?
• Have comparable reviews or rulings been issued in other jurisdictions that could influence the domestic outcome?

---

SOURCE MAP

Source	What to look for	Frequency
Government review committee's official page	New documents, consultation notices, committee announcements	Every 2 days
Labour ministry press releases	Ministerial statements on the review or on platform worker conditions	Every 2 days
Parliamentary record / Hansard	Questions, debates, or committee hearings referencing the review	Weekly
Workplace health and safety authority	Incident reports, enforcement actions involving delivery platforms	Weekly
Platform companies' investor relations pages	Earnings calls, regulatory risk disclosures, public statements	Monthly
Trade union and worker advocacy group websites	Submissions, press statements, campaign updates	Weekly
Industry association for food delivery platforms	Submissions, member communications, public responses	Weekly
Labour and employment specialist press	Analysis, leaked documents, expert commentary	Every 2 days
Court and tribunal records	Worker misclassification cases, injury claims, enforcement proceedings	Weekly
Social media (platform worker communities)	Organised action, incident reports, sentiment shifts	Twice weekly

---

ALERT THRESHOLDS

File a story immediately if:

• The committee publishes a document that contains a specific policy recommendation or ruling
• Any major platform announces a significant operational or policy change in direct response to the review
• A serious or fatal worker safety incident occurs and receives official acknowledgement
• The review timeline is extended, narrowed, or cancelled

Note for next weekly editorial review if:

• A submission from a significant stakeholder (major union, employer group) is published and takes a clear or unexpected position
• Parliamentary debate on the topic intensifies or a motion is tabled
• A comparable ruling or finding is issued in another jurisdiction

No immediate action if:

• Routine procedural updates (committee meeting dates, minor schedule changes) with no substantive content
• Social media activity that is not corroborated by any on-record source

---

Known Limitations

• This brief is built from the information you provide. If you omit a key stakeholder or source category, it will not appear in the source map — review the output against your own knowledge of the beat before using it.
• Checking cadences assume a single-reporter workload. If you are on a team, redistribute tasks explicitly rather than assuming shared coverage.
• The assistant cannot access live monitoring tools, set up RSS feeds, or create alerts — the brief tells you what to watch, but you must set up the actual tools yourself.
• For highly technical regulatory topics (financial regulation, pharmaceutical approvals), the monitoring questions may need review by a subject-matter specialist before use.

Related Skills

• press-roundup-writer
• competitor-coverage-gap-finder
• trending-topics-brief