본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

jurisrank

Argentine Supreme Court citation network analysis using JurisRank — a peer-reviewed PageRank algorithm with temporal decay for measuring jurisprudential authority. Ranks precedents by citation influence, traces doctrinal evolution, and detects constitutional drift. Published methodology: JCLLT (DOI: 10.47852/bonviewJCLLT62027951). Activate with: which cases to cite, rank precedents, case authority, doctrinal evolution, Argentine Supreme Court, CSJN jurisprudence, citation network, leading case, legal research Argentina.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills

실행 점수 미검증

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(2)

  • SKILL.md5.6 KB
  • README.md247 B

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

JurisRank — Argentine Jurisprudential Authority Analysis

What JurisRank Is

JurisRank is a computational tool for measuring the authority of Argentine court decisions through citation network analysis. Its methodology is peer-reviewed and published in the Journal of Computational Law and Legal Technology:

Lerer, I.A. (2026). "Computational Detection of Constitutional Drift: Network Analysis and Semantic Measurement of Argentine Supreme Court Jurisprudence (1922–2025)." Journal of Computational Law and Legal Technology. DOI: 10.47852/bonviewJCLLT62027951

Academic validation: κ = 0.83 inter-coder reliability · k-fold cross- validation (k=5) · 73.2% mean accuracy · Monte Carlo simulations (n=1,000).

License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

Three Algorithms

AlgorithmPurpose
JurisRankPageRank + temporal decay — recent citations weighted higher
RootFinderAncestral Borrowing Analysis Network — traces doctrinal genealogy
Legal-MemespacePrincipal Component Analysis — maps multidimensional doctrine

Coverage

  • Argentine Supreme Court (CSJN) — 1922 to present
  • National and federal courts of appeals (Cámaras nacionales y federales)
  • Selected provincial supreme courts
  • Relevant international precedents cited by Argentine courts

Authority Score Interpretation

ScoreMeaningRecommendation
> 0.8Leading case — highest citation authorityCite first, with score
0.6–0.8Widely cited — strong precedential weightCite with score
0.4–0.6Relevant — moderate authorityCite with note
< 0.4Limited authority — outlier or isolatedOrientation only
Not foundNo network presence detectedDeclare absence of precedent

Use Cases

1. Selecting case law for briefs and memos

When multiple cases address the same issue, JurisRank identifies which carry the most authority in the citation network → cite the most influential first, in ranked order.

2. Doctrinal evolution analysis

Trace how CSJN or appellate court doctrine evolved on a specific topic. Identify whether the most recent decision continues or breaks from prior doctrine.

3. Adversarial jurisprudential due diligence

Verify whether precedents cited by opposing counsel are genuinely authoritative or low-influence outliers.

4. Constitutional drift detection

Detect shifts in citation patterns that signal doctrinal erosion or realignment — original application from the JCLLT paper.

Workflow

1. Identify topic or specific cases to analyze
2. Query JurisRank API:
   GET  https://api.jurisrank.com/v1/cases?query=<topic>
   POST https://api.jurisrank.com/v1/analyze-authority {"case_id": "..."}
3. Interpret Authority Score and citation network position
4. Apply RootFinder for genealogy if doctrinal evolution is needed
5. Produce ranked analysis with citation recommendations

Anti-Hallucination Rules

JurisRank implements groundedness verification per the Stanford Legal AI Benchmark (Magesh et al., 2024):

Before including any case in the analysis:

  • Confirm Authority Score > 0.0 (case exists in the network)
  • Verify jurisdiction matches the forum of the matter
  • Check temporal decay: has a more-cited posterior decision superseded it?
  • Verify the case actually supports the proposition — not just addresses the topic

Never cite a case not found in the JurisRank network without explicitly declaring it as unverified.

Output Format

JURISRANK ANALYSIS — [Topic]
Date: [date] | Tool: JurisRank (Lerer, 2026, JCLLT)

## RANKED PRECEDENTS BY AUTHORITY
| Case | Court | Year | Authority Score | Network Position |
|------|-------|------|----------------|-----------------|
| ...  | CSJN  | ...  | 0.92           | Leading case    |

## DOCTRINAL EVOLUTION
[Timeline: how doctrine developed]

## CITATION NETWORK
[Which cases cite each other; doctrinal clusters]

## RECOMMENDATION
[Which cases to cite · in what order · why]

About the Author

Ignacio Adrián Lerer is an Argentine attorney and independent researcher. JurisRank was developed as part of research on computational legal analysis published in peer-reviewed journals. The tool is registered with Argentina's DNDA (copyright registry) and has a patent application pending at INPI Argentina.

Contact: justitia.com.ar

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

adjudicative-ai-impartiality-challenge

무료

Public-safe preliminary screen for challenges to the impartiality of an AI evaluator, LLM-as-a-judge, decision-support agent, or adjudicative system based on prior outputs, suspected bias, unstable reasoning, or self-reinforcing memory. Use when asked whether an AI should be recused, disqualified, replaced, audited, or escalated. Does not decide real cases or claim that human judicial-recusal doctrine automatically applies.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8942026년 10월 20일 업데이트

agent-authority-charter-builder-arkadiy-miteiko

무료

Creates an Agent Authority Charter for enterprise or regulated AI agents before deployment. Use this Skill when a user needs to define what an AI agent is allowed to do, who delegated authority to it, what actions are permitted or prohibited, when human approval is required, what evidence must be preserved, and how the agent can be suspended, revoked, or escalated.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8942026년 10월 20일 업데이트

ai-act-knowledge

무료

EU AI Act Knowledge Engine — authoritative regulatory Q&A grounded in 70 official EU source documents (including the 2026 Commission draft guidelines on Art. 6 high-risk classification — general principles, Annex I, Annex III). Answers any question about the AI Act with article-level citations from the full regulation text, Commission guidelines, EDPB/EDPS opinions, codes of practice, harmonised standards, FRIA guides, incident templates, and sector-specific guidance. This skill should be used when the user asks about the "EU AI Act", "AI Act regulation", "Regulation 2024/1689", "KI-Verordnung", asks to "explain an AI Act article", "what does Article X say", "AI Act requirements", "AI Act penalties", "AI Act timeline", "GPAI obligations", "high-risk AI", "prohibited AI practices", "AI Act and GDPR", "fundamental rights impact assessment", "AI Act standards", "AI Act national implementation", "AI literacy", "serious incident reporting", "Digital Omnibus", "AI regulatory sandbox", or any question about EU artificial intelligence regulation. Also triggers on German terms: "KI-Gesetz", "KI-Verordnung", "Hochrisiko-KI", "KI-Kompetenz", "Grundrechte-Folgenabschaetzung", "GPAI-Verhaltenskodex". For assessment workflows that produce a classification decision rather than a knowledge answer, offer to run a structured risk-tier classification in-session.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8942026년 10월 20일 업데이트

ai-audit-trail-larissa-meredith-flister

무료

This skill builds a structured audit trail of an AI-assisted task: what the tool was asked to do, what materials it was given, what it produced, how the output was verified, and what was ultimately relied upon. It documents the workflow for supervision and later review without ruling on privilege or disclosure, so the record stays accurate rather than self-serving.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8942026년 10월 20일 업데이트

ai-governance-reviewer-carl-ditzler

무료

Use this skill when the user wants an AI governance, legal-risk, privacy, compliance, procurement, or vendor-risk review of an internal AI use case, an AI product feature, an LLM workflow, or a third-party AI vendor. The skill asks intake and clarifying questions first when facts or evidence are missing, identifies required documentation and missing evidence, maps the use case to AI governance frameworks and applicable legal domains, and produces a preliminary or final governance review with scorecards, findings, owners, remediation actions, and follow-up questions.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8942026년 10월 20일 업데이트

ambiguity-report

무료

Turn an interpretive-ambiguity audit of a legal text — contract, statute, regulation, or judicial opinion — into a polished deliverable. Produces a multi-page website (default), a single-page interactive site, a Microsoft Word document, a PowerPoint deck, or a LaTeX/PDF. Use whenever a user has a stress-test result, ambiguity audit, or "where will this be litigated" scenarios and wants to publish, present, or share them. Triggers on "publish the audit," "make a report from this," "turn this into a website / deck / brief / Word doc," "make a Netlify site," "build slides of these ambiguities," "render the scenarios," "package this stress test," "produce a LaTeX version," and similar. Pairs with the ambiguity-stress-test skill (the underlying analysis) but works on any structured or semi-structured ambiguity analysis. Visual design is opinionated but the user can override colors, fonts, and brand label. Most formats need Python and a writable filesystem; single-file HTML works where the host has neither.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8942026년 10월 20일 업데이트

lawve-ai의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고