본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

statute-briefer

Brief statutes and legislative Acts using the MAPS + RULES framework. Use when briefing statutes, analyzing legislative text, mapping statutory structure, extracting rule-modules from provisions, applying statutes to scenarios, or any statutory analysis task. Triggers include "brief this statute," "analyze this Act," "map the statute," "apply [statute] to [scenario]," "what are the elements of [provision]," "statutory analysis," or references to codified sections (such as 42 U.S.C. sections or Texas Health & Safety Code). Supports two modes - (A) text-only briefing for structural analysis, and (B) scenario-driven briefing that applies statutory provisions to specific facts.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

실행 점수 미검증

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(5)

  • SKILL.md5.9 KB
  • README.md13 B
  • references/example-brief.md7.2 KB
  • references/rule-module-template.md4.4 KB
  • references/scenario-template.md3.8 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Statute Briefer (MAPS + RULES)

Produce structured statute/Act briefs that (a) map the architecture of the entire statute/Act and (b) express operative provisions as rule-modules. Optionally apply provisions to scenarios with verbatim quotations.

Input Modes

Mode A: Text-only briefing

  • Required: Statutory text (or delimited excerpt)
  • Optional: Citation info, version type (enacted/codified/amendment), length constraint (short/standard/long)

Mode B: Scenario-driven briefing

  • Required: Statutory text + scenario description
  • Optional: Decision posture (advice/compliance/litigation), length constraint

If citation/version missing, label brief as "text-as-provided" without recency claims.

Output Structure

Every brief produces two layers. In Mode B, prepend the Scenario Module.

Scenario Module (Mode B only)

See references/scenario-template.md for detailed template.

Six components:

  1. Scenario synopsis – Legally salient facts only
  2. Issues framed as statutory questions – Frame disputes as statutory interpretation questions
  3. Relevant excerpts (verbatim) – Block-quoted text with pinpoint cites; include adjacent definitions/exceptions
  4. Application map (statute-to-facts) – For each issue: elements met, unclear, or disputed; identify missing facts
  5. Context map (where excerpts live) – Title/Chapter/Section path for each excerpt
  6. Not used but structurally important – Major Act components not triggered by scenario

MAPS (System-Level Map)

Five components:

  1. Citation and text status – Citation block or "citation not provided"; note if partial text
  2. Purpose – Quote express purpose/findings if present (with cite); otherwise label as inference
  3. Structure map (entire Act) – Hierarchical outline with functional labels ("definitions," "prohibition," "enforcement," etc.); for large statutes, provide major-divisions overview plus zoomed detail
  4. Scope and coverage – Covered actors, conduct, geography, time, jurisdictional hooks, explicit exclusions
  5. Definitions and interpretive rules – Defined terms index; interpretive provisions; cross-references

RULES (Operational Modules)

For each major operative provision (or scenario-relevant provisions), produce a rule-module.

See references/rule-module-template.md for detailed template.

Rule-Module required fields:

  1. Provision – Pinpoint cite
  2. Trigger conditions (elements) – What activates the provision
  3. Legal effect – Command / permission / prohibition / entitlement
  4. Exceptions / defenses / safe harbors – Carve-outs from the rule
  5. Procedure / decision-maker – Deadlines, notice, standards
  6. Consequences – Penalties, remedies, invalidity, loss of benefits
  7. Forum / enforcer – Agency, court, private plaintiff
  8. Interaction rules – Preemption/savings, severability, effective date, cross-references

Mandatory Constraints

Verbatim Discipline

  • Never invent statutory language
  • Mark all quotations explicitly with pinpoint cites
  • If text is missing, say so and proceed with what is provided

Cross-Reference Discipline

  • When statute defines a term used in operative provision, incorporate that definition
  • Flag external cross-references: "cross-reference not included in provided materials"

Separation of Layers

  • Keep "Quoted Text" separate from "Explanation/Translation"
  • Use block quotes or clear markers

No Premature Narrowing

  • Even in scenario mode, include MAPS structure map at major-division level

Selection Rules

Mode A (no scenario): Major operative provisions = primary prohibitions/requirements/entitlements + enforcement/remedies + key definitions + preemption/savings/severability/venue

Mode B (with scenario): Prioritize provisions governing scenario issues + conditioning definitions/enforcement/exceptions. Still include full structure map.

Length Control

ConstraintStructure MapRule-ModulesDefinitions
ShortSpine outline onlyMost relevant onlyKey scope terms only
StandardMajor divisions completeCore operative provisionsTerms affecting scope
LongFull detailAll operative provisionsComprehensive index

Uncertainty Handling

  • Insufficient facts → Label "Fact needed: [specific missing fact]"
  • Partial statute → Label "based on provided excerpt only"
  • Never fill in absent provisions

Exact Headings (for parsing)

Scenario Module
  Scenario synopsis
  Issues framed as statutory questions
  Relevant excerpts (verbatim)
  Application map (statute-to-facts)
  Context map (where excerpts live)
  Not used but structurally important

MAPS
  Citation and text status
  Purpose
  Structure map (entire Act)
  Scope and coverage
  Definitions and interpretive rules

RULES
  Rule-Module: [Provision cite]

Boundaries

  • Briefs statutes and legislative Acts only
  • No policy commentary unless asked
  • No grading or pedagogy commentary
  • No generating new statutory text
  • No case citations unless explicitly requested; may note "interpretive pressure points" as ambiguity flags

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