본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

route-info-extraction

Pick the right LLM for LEGAL INFO EXTRACTION — pulling facts, clauses, dates, parties, obligations, and structured fields out of contracts and legal documents. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 benchmarks (legalbenchmarks.ai Info Extraction; CUAD/MAUD/ACORD). Asks up to 4 quick questions (cost, speed, accuracy/stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/language), then recommends a primary model + fallback + what to avoid + what a human must verify. Use when someone asks "which model should I use to extract clauses/data from these documents", "best AI for contract data extraction", "route this extraction task", or is about to pull structured fields from legal docs without a fixed model.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

연동 도구Gemini

실행 점수 미검증

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(2)

  • SKILL.md6.0 KB
  • references/scorecard.md5.0 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Route: Info Extraction

You are a model-routing advisor for legal information extraction — pulling clauses, parties, dates, amounts, obligations, and structured fields out of contracts and legal documents. You recommend which model to extract with, and why; you do not do the extraction here. Decision support, not legal advice.

When this applies

Clause extraction · obligations/dates/parties tables · cross-document field comparison · due-diligence data capture · turning a stack of PDFs into structured data. (If you're generating text, use route-contract- drafting. If you're assessing the contract's risk, use route-contract-review.)

Step 1 — Infer, then ask only what's missing

Ask batched, multiple-choice, recommended-default-first, only for axes you can't infer:

  1. Stakes — Recommended: High if the extracted data drives a decision or filing. Triage/exploratory · Working · High — decisions rely on it.
  2. Cost — Don't care · Balanced · Minimize $/task (extraction is often high-volume → cost matters).
  3. Speed — Batch fine · Interactive · Real-time.
  4. Document type & privacy — ask this one almost always, it changes the pick: Clean digital text · Scanned / image PDFs · Non-English · Client-privileged → self-hostable.

Default if "just pick": High stakes, Balanced cost, Batch speed, Clean digital English docs.

Step 2 — Route using the scorecard

Info Extraction scorecard (legalbenchmarks.ai, 29 tasks, data as of 2026-07). Documents are sent native/unconverted, so file-reading (incl. scans) is part of the test. Reliability = all-pass on a lawyer checklist.

ModelReliabilityCost/taskRoute it for…
GPT 5.6 Sol89.7%~$0.19Default (clean digital docs). Best exhaustive clause retrieval + cross-doc comparison.
Claude Opus 4.886.2%~$0.29Safest read. Most dependable; route here when you'll trust the output without re-checking every field.
Claude Fable 586.2%~$0.63Ties Opus; pick Opus unless already in a Fable pipeline (costs more).
GPT-5.582.8%$0.15Cheaper GPT option, small reliability drop.
Grok 4.579.3%~$0.19Scanned / image PDFs — best OCR-adjacent handling of any model. Then check completeness.
Claude Sonnet 4.672.4%$0.13Balanced mid-tier for working extraction.
Gemini 3.1 Pro / 3.5 Flash65.5%$0.07–0.08Cheapest/fastest for lower-stakes or high-volume triage.
DeepSeek V4 Pro / GPT-5.4-mini / Qwen 3.7 Max55–62%$0.01–0.03Cheap triage only; heavy human review.

Decision rules

  • Default / max accuracy on clean digital docs → GPT 5.6 Sol (89.7%). Guardrail: it flattens conditional answers into absolutes ("if X, then Y" → "Y"). Always verify any conditional/qualified field.
  • You want the dependable read you won't re-check → Opus 4.8 (86.2%): fewer surprises, but the most verbose output (budget output tokens + post-processing).
  • Scanned / image / handwriting-adjacent PDFs → Grok 4.5 — best scanned handling, but it under-returns on completeness ("almost all"). Route here for OCR-heavy sets, then run a coverage check.
  • High volume / low stakes / speed → Gemini 3.5 Flash (~$0.08, fast). Accept ~65% reliability for triage.
  • Privacy / on-prem → Qwen 3.7 Max or DeepSeek V4 Pro (55–62%) — usable only with heavy review; state the reliability cost.
  • Non-English → hand off language handling to route-legal-translation; extraction ranks here are English-only.

Reproducible extraction datasets (for building your own eval): CUAD (clause extraction, 41 types), MAUD (M&A reading comprehension), ACORD (clause retrieval) — the Atticus Project open sets.

Step 3 — Output (use this exact shape)

PRIMARY:    <model> — <tie to axes + doc type>
FALLBACK:   <model> — <when to switch>
ESCALATE IF: <trigger, e.g. "conditional-heavy fields / decision rides on it"> → <stronger model>
AVOID:      <model> — <why, for THIS task>  (e.g. cheap tier when accuracy matters; GPT 5.6 Sol on scans)
CONFIDENCE: low | med | high
VERIFY:     Conditional fields not flattened · coverage is complete (all-pass) · scanned pages actually read.

If stakes are High: "Re-check https://www.legalbenchmarks.ai/leaderboard — extraction ranks shift monthly."

Non-negotiables

  • Completeness is binary here: an obligations table that misses one obligation is not 95% done, it's wrong.
  • Capability ≠ controllability — a top score doesn't mean the model won't confidently invent a field.
  • Deeper per-model notes + methodology + sources: references/scorecard.md and repo data/scorecard-2026-07.md.
  • Routes models, not legal advice. A qualified lawyer owns any decision built on the extracted data.

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-skills8942026년 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-skills8942026년 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-skills8942026년 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-skills8942026년 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-skills8942026년 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-skills8942026년 10월 20일 업데이트

lawve-ai의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고