본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

recherche-normes

Find and quote legal texts and administrative guidance with the LibreJustice MCP tools, covering French codes at any date, EU law, treaties and bilateral accords, foreign codes (59 countries), collective agreements, BOFiP and circulaires. Use whenever the user asks what a text says or said at a given date, which version or which text applies to a situation, needs the exact wording of a provision for a brief, or works with foreign or international law in French litigation, even if they never mention LibreJustice.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

실행 점수 미검증

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(8)

  • SKILL.md7.9 KB
  • agents/openai.yaml259 B
  • README.md2.9 KB
  • references/corpus.md3.2 KB
  • references/external-sources.md4.0 KB
  • references/foreign-law.md4.6 KB
  • references/install-mcp.md1.2 KB
  • references/traps.md3.6 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Statutory research (LibreJustice)

The user needs the exact provision, in the version in force at the legally relevant date, linked and quoted verbatim. A paraphrase from memory is not a deliverable: models misremember article numbers and miss amendments; every quoted provision comes from get_norm.

The referential goes far beyond French codes: EU law, international treaties (including bilateral accords), the codes of 59 foreign countries, collective agreements, BOFiP. Map and counts: references/corpus.md. Observed failure modes: references/traps.md. Foreign and international law: references/foreign-law.md.

The tools come from the LibreJustice MCP server; if get_norm is missing from your session, connect it first: references/install-mcp.md.

Iron rules

  1. Never quote a provision from memory. Fetch it with get_norm, quote verbatim, link the article ([Article 7 bis de l'Accord franco-algérien du 27 décembre 1968](https://librejustice.fr/norm/…), the url verbatim).
  2. Date before text. Identify the legally relevant date first (the attacked decision, the facts, the contract), pass it as date (both get_norm and search_norms take it; the search then matches the versions valid at that date), and say which version you quote (its validity window is in the response). The version in force today is the wrong one for most litigation.
  3. Name texts by their official name. The code filter resolves slugs and exact official names, not usual names: « CEDH » and « Convention européenne des droits de l'homme » fail where « Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales » works. When unsure, recover the slug from facets.code or from an inline /norm/ link in a decision.

A get_norm response may also carry commentaires, doctrine anchored on the article, served inline (body) or as outbound links (url). Context, never the norm: only the article text quotes as the provision.

Three access paths, cheapest first

  1. Text and article known: compose the URL directly, https://librejustice.fr/norm/{juris}/{code-slug}/{article-key} (fr/code-civil/47, sn/code-de-la-famille/40, intl/accord-franco-algerien-du-27-decembre-1968/7-bis; {juris} is the enacting jurisdiction in lowercase, fr, eu, intl or an ISO country code; keys are lowercase, l761-1 for L. 761-1). A wrong slug errors back with the closest ones: guessing then correcting is one call, a search is two. The root /norm/{juris}/{code-slug}, with no key, always answers and never carries num: a text with no articles (circulaire, publication decree) comes back whole, one with articles comes back as its table of contents in articles, bodies joined when the text is short. On a text you do not know, read the root first. To read a chapter, fetch the division, not its articles. Table of contents entries with kind: "section" carry the url of the division, the path of its segments (/norm/fr/code-civil/livre-i/titre-v), that get_norm takes: it returns every article of that division with its body, where walking them one by one costs one call each. Past the inline reading budget the bodies drop out, omitted says how many, and each entry url still fetches its own article. An article carries its section too, the division enclosing it: its url reads the neighbouring articles in one call. A Légifrance id or permalink (LEGIARTI, LEGITEXT, LEGISCTA, JORFARTI…) goes in textId as is.
  2. Text known, article unknown: search_norms with the code filter (slug or exact name) and a descriptive French query on the subject. Within one named text, ranking is reliable. When the relevant date is known, pass date here too: hits are the versions valid at that date, not today's.
  3. Text unknown: descriptive query plus the jurisdiction filter (FR, UE, INTL, or an ISO country code SN, DZ, BE…), then read facets.code to see which texts concentrate the matches and re-query with the winner. Ranking is domestic-first: a bare descriptive query ranks French, EU and treaty law above the 59 foreign corpora, and naming the country in the query (« divorce au sénégal ») scopes it to that country's law instead. A query that IS a text's name, official or usual (« code civil du sénégal »), returns the text itself as a num-less first hit whose url is the /norm/{juris}/{slug} entry point: the cheapest way to recover a slug. Still don't trust a bare descriptive search beyond its top hits: the corpus is ~2 million articles dominated by circulaires and arrêtés, the total is OR-matched noise, and body-text sources keep crowding treaty searches: the jurisdiction and code filters remain the robust path.

Versions, renumbering, silence

  • The response carries the full version timeline. When a text was recodified or an article renumbered (CESEDA 2021: L. 313-11 → L. 423-23; code du travail 2008), query both numbers: each key has its own timeline and the decisive one depends on your date.
  • « Not found » with a date means no version in force at that date under that key, not that the rule did not exist. Re-fetch without date to see the timeline, then chase the earlier numbering.
  • Abrogated texts stay served: the code de la nationalité française or an old CESEDA article at its date is one date away.
  • Hits may repeat one article once per version: deduplicate by URL.

Legal orders and hierarchy

State which legal order a provision belongs to, and flag the hierarchy when orders collide: a bilateral accord is lex specialis (the accord franco-algérien governs Algerian residence permits and derogates from the CESEDA), EU law primes national law in its field, the Convention de sauvegarde primes statute. When the question spans orders, fetch the provisions on each side.

Chain with case law

Both directions, and always both in a dispute:

  • Text → decisions: search_decisions with legal_instrument (any slug: a French code, a treaty, a foreign code) or legal_article (accord-franco-algerien-du-27-decembre-1968|7-bis) finds the decisions applying the provision, then the recherche-jurisprudence skill takes over.
  • Decision → texts: decision full texts carry inline /norm/ links on every cited provision; open them with get_norm rather than searching again.

Present each provision

Things to say, not wording to reproduce: say them in the language the user writes in, under whatever headings that language calls for.

  • Cite the provision with the official text name and article number, linking it on the url verbatim.
  • Say which version you quote, its validity dates, and why that version governs the case (rule 2).
  • Quote it verbatim, never truncating a sentence in a way that drops a condition or a negation.
  • For foreign and aggregated sources, say where the text comes from when reliability matters: each hit carries a source field (official publishers like legifrance, eur-lex, fedlex, dri.gouv.sn vs aggregators like jafbase or archive.org, see corpus.md).

Don't waste calls

  • Known article → compose the URL, skip the search.
  • The version timeline arrives with every fetch: no second call to ask « since when ».
  • One search with the right filter beats five filterless reformulations; after two queries with no new candidate, change the filter (code, jurisdiction), not the synonyms.

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-skills8962026년 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-skills8962026년 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-skills8962026년 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-skills8962026년 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-skills8962026년 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-skills8962026년 10월 20일 업데이트

lawve-ai의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고