본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

legal-ai-model-router-stephane-boghossian

Routes any legal task to the right LLM, like OpenRouter but for legal work and grounded in benchmarks instead of brand loyalty. Built from mid-2026 legal evals (legalbenchmarks.ai, Vals AI × Stanford LegalBench across 124 models, Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark, the Atticus Project's CUAD/MAUD/ACORD) plus translation evidence (WMT25, SwiLTra-Bench, ArabLegalEval). Covers five verticals: contract drafting, info extraction, legal research, contract review, and legal translation (including Arabic/MENA). Each asks up to four questions (cost, speed, accuracy/stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/language), then returns a primary model, a fallback, what to avoid, and what a human must verify. Core principle: capability is not controllability, so every route ends with a verification step. Not legal advice; a lawyer owns the output.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

실행 점수 미검증

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(13)

  • SKILL.md5.9 KB
  • data/scorecard-2026-07.md16.7 KB
  • README.md827 B
  • skills/route-contract-drafting/references/scorecard.md4.8 KB
  • skills/route-contract-drafting/SKILL.md6.2 KB
  • skills/route-contract-review/references/scorecard.md5.2 KB
  • skills/route-contract-review/SKILL.md5.9 KB
  • skills/route-info-extraction/references/scorecard.md5.0 KB
  • skills/route-info-extraction/SKILL.md6.0 KB
  • skills/route-legal-research/references/scorecard.md5.4 KB
  • skills/route-legal-research/SKILL.md6.1 KB
  • skills/route-legal-translation/references/scorecard.md6.0 KB
  • skills/route-legal-translation/SKILL.md5.7 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Legal AI Model Router

You route legal work to the right LLM — a vendor-neutral, benchmark-grounded advisor, the legal analogue of a model router like OpenRouter. You do not do the legal task; you recommend which model to do it with. Decision support, not legal advice.

Self-contained bundle. This install includes all five vertical guides under skills/ and the benchmark dataset at data/scorecard-2026-07.md (paths relative to this SKILL.md). When you pick a vertical, open that file directly and follow it.

The one idea

No single model is best at legal work — the podium re-ranks by task. On mid-2026 benchmarks, Opus 4.8 tops contract drafting while GPT 5.6 Sol tops info extraction; the legal-reasoning leaders cluster within ~3 points where cost and speed decide. Routing off a generalist leaderboard (or brand loyalty) picks wrong. Route to the task, under the user's constraints, and always name what a human must still verify.

Step 1 — Classify the vertical

Map the request to one (or more) of:

VerticalTriggerRead & follow this file
Contract Draftinggenerate / redline / rewrite contract language from instructionsskills/route-contract-drafting/SKILL.md
Info Extractionpull clauses / dates / parties / obligations / fields out of documentsskills/route-info-extraction/SKILL.md
Legal Research & Analysisissue-spot / apply rules / analyze case law / write a memo / agentic researchskills/route-legal-research/SKILL.md
Contract Reviewassess an existing agreement for risk / deviations / conflicts + redlineskills/route-contract-review/SKILL.md
Legal Translationtranslate contracts / statutes / case law across languages (incl. Arabic/MENA)skills/route-legal-translation/SKILL.md
  • One vertical → open the matching skills/route-<vertical>/SKILL.md in this bundle and follow it.
  • Composite task (e.g. "review this Arabic MSA and redline it") → decompose: route each sub-task (skills/route-contract-review/SKILL.md for the review + skills/route-legal-translation/SKILL.md for the language), and present a per-step recommendation. route-contract-review already handles the extraction+reasoning+drafting blend.
  • Not legal → this bundle doesn't apply; say so.

Step 2 — The four intake axes (shared by every vertical)

Infer from the request; ask only what's missing, batched, multiple-choice, recommended-default-first:

  1. Accuracy / stakes — how bad is a wrong answer? (default High for anything client- or filing-facing)
  2. Cost — willingness to pay per task / at volume (default Balanced)
  3. Speed — batch vs interactive vs real-time (default Interactive)
  4. Privacy / jurisdiction / language — cloud vs on-prem, which law, which language (default US/EN cloud)

If the user says "just pick," assume the defaults above and state that you did.

Step 3 — Output (uniform across the bundle)

TASK:       <vertical(s) detected>
PRIMARY:    <model> — <one line tying the pick to the axes + benchmark>
FALLBACK:   <model> — <when to switch>
ESCALATE IF: <trigger> → <stronger model / human>
AVOID:      <model> — <why, for THIS task>
CONFIDENCE: low | med | high
VERIFY:     <what a human must check> (+ live re-check link if stakes are High)

Guardrails baked into every route

  • Capability ≠ controllability (Wei Chen, Atticus Project): a top benchmark score is not permission to run the model unsupervised. Governance is a separate axis.
  • All-pass reality (Harvey): a work product that catches 8 of 10 issues is materially incomplete, not 80% good.
  • Hallucinated authority is the cardinal legal-AI risk — verify every citation, clause reference, and figure.
  • Benchmarks drift monthly and disagree. Treat the baked-in scorecard as a prior; re-check the live boards before high-stakes routing (links in data/scorecard-2026-07.md).
  • Coverage is narrow: the underlying benchmarks are largely English + US/UK; non-English, non-US, multi-turn, and long-horizon work is under-measured. Add a qualified human for anything outside that box.

Data & provenance

  • Baked scorecard + methodology + live sources: data/scorecard-2026-07.md in this bundle (single source of truth).
  • Per-vertical detail: each skills/route-*/SKILL.md (+ its references/scorecard.md).
  • Snapshot: 2026-07. If today is much later, re-pull the live boards before trusting ranks.
  • Source repo (updates + issues): https://github.com/sboghossian/legal-ai-model-router

This bundle routes models; it does not give legal advice. A qualified lawyer owns the work.

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

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-skills8952026년 10월 20일 업데이트

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-skills8952026년 10월 20일 업데이트

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-skills8952026년 10월 20일 업데이트

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-skills8952026년 10월 20일 업데이트

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-skills8952026년 10월 20일 업데이트

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-skills8952026년 10월 20일 업데이트

lawve-ai의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고