本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

bates-citation-verification

Citation format and verification protocol for legal documents that draw on Bates-stamped source records. Defines the bracket citation format, multi-source citation rules, quotation handling, the verification pass that runs before output, and the [UNVERIFIED] flag protocol. Use this skill any time another skill produces a legal work product that cites Bates-stamped pages, including medical chronologies, deposition summaries, demand letters, case briefs, and discovery responses. Also use any time the user asks how to format a citation or verify that a claim is supported by the source.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(2)

  • SKILL.md11.2 KB
  • LICENSE.txt10.5 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Bates Citation and Verification

Defines how to cite Bates-stamped source records and how to verify those citations before delivering the work product. This skill is consumed by other skills (medical chronology, deposition summary, demand letters, case briefs) so they share a single citation discipline.

The skill is built for case.dev style retrieval where source records have been ingested with Bates range metadata. Other environments are addressed at the bottom.

Citation Format

Place citations in square brackets at the end of the sentence or bullet they support. No spaces inside the brackets.

Single page

Patient reported neck pain rated 8/10. [SMITH00145]

Page range

For a fact that spans contiguous pages, use a range with a hyphen:

The MRI report concluded multilevel degenerative changes superimposed on
acute L4-L5 disc herniation. [SMITH00203-00207]

Multiple non-contiguous citations

For a single fact supported by multiple non-contiguous Bates locations, comma-separate inside one bracket:

The patient reported the same mechanism of injury to four separate providers.
[SMITH00145, SMITH00302, SMITH00489, SMITH00611]

Citing across producing parties

When multiple parties have produced records with different Bates prefixes, always include the prefix even when context makes it obvious. Prefixes change between productions.

Plaintiff reported full recovery to her primary care physician [SMITH00422]
but reported continued severe pain to her treating orthopedist three days later.
[JONES_RECORDS00188]

Quotations

Direct quotations must be in quotation marks with citation. Do not paraphrase quoted material that you have rendered as a quotation.

Dr. Chen wrote, "Within a reasonable degree of medical probability, the
patient's L4-L5 herniation is causally related to the motor vehicle collision
of March 8, 2024." [SMITH00892]

The quote must match the source verbatim. Punctuation, capitalization, and word choice all carry weight in legal writing. Do not "clean up" quoted material. If the source has a typo, quote it with [sic].

If a passage needs to be shortened, use ellipses for omitted material. Do not omit content that changes the meaning.

Dr. Chen wrote, "Within a reasonable degree of medical probability, the
patient's L4-L5 herniation is causally related to the motor vehicle collision...
based on the temporal relationship between the incident and onset of symptoms,
the mechanism of injury, and the absence of documented prior lumbar complaints."
[SMITH00892]

The Three Categories

Every claim in the work product falls into one of three categories.

Verified

The claim is supported by retrieved source content that has been re-checked. Cite the Bates range and include the claim normally.

Unverified

The claim appears in the records but the specific page cannot be retrieved at the time of preparation. Common reasons:

  • Source chunk was retrieved during initial drafting but cannot be re-retrieved during the verification pass (RAG flakiness)
  • The claim is a high-level summary that aggregates content across many pages and no single citation suffices
  • The records reference an external document (radiology report, lab result) that was not produced

Include the claim and append the flag inline:

Patient was hospitalized for three days following the incident.
[UNVERIFIED - claim appears in records but specific page not retrievable]

Do not drop unverified claims. Removing the claim hides information from the attorney; flagging it surfaces a follow-up item.

Contradicted

The retrieved source contradicts the claim. Remove the claim from the work product. If the contradiction is itself useful (impeachment material, inconsistent histories), surface it in the Strategic Analysis or equivalent section with both citations.

Never Fabricate

Never invent a Bates range. If a fact cannot be tied to a specific page, mark it [UNVERIFIED]. Inventing citations is the fastest way to make the attorney sanctionable. This is the single most important rule in this skill.

If you find yourself constructing a Bates range that "should" exist (e.g., "if the chronology spans page 145, then this claim is probably on page 146"), stop and use [UNVERIFIED] instead.

The Verification Pass

Before delivering the work product, run a verification pass. This pass is mandatory, not optional.

Step 1: Prefix and format preflight

Extract the canonical Bates prefix(es) and citation format from production header pages or the first page of each produced record set. Record the prefix, spacing, digit count, and range. Any citation whose prefix, spacing, or digit pattern does not match is not verified; correct it if the source page proves the right citation, otherwise mark the claim [UNVERIFIED].

Step 2: Inventory the citations

Extract every citation from the draft work product. For each, you should have:

  • The claim it supports (the sentence or bullet ending in the citation)
  • The Bates range cited
  • Whether the claim contains a direct quotation

Step 3: Page-level extraction and matching

For each cited claim, verify with independent page-level PDF OCR/text-layer extraction from the cited Bates page. Vault search may find candidate support during drafting, but vault-search-only support is non-final and must be marked [UNVERIFIED] unless page-level extraction confirms it.

For each citation, verify:

  1. The cited Bates range exists in the production
  2. The Bates prefix matches the canonical prefix and format
  3. The literal page text supports the claim verbatim or by clear paraphrase
  4. For quotations, the quoted text appears verbatim in the source
  5. The source date on the page, if visible, is consistent with the encounter or claim date

Step 4: Categorize and act

Based on the re-check, each citation falls into one of these outcomes:

OutcomeAction
Page-level extraction verified, claim supportedNo change
Citation verified, claim partially supportedNarrow the claim to what the source supports
Citation verified but content does not support the claimRemove the claim or change the citation
Citation is supported only by vault searchMark [UNVERIFIED] or rerun page-level extraction
Citation cannot be page-verifiedMark [UNVERIFIED]
Quoted text differs from sourceCorrect the quote to match the source verbatim
Bates range or prefix does not exist in productionRemove the citation, mark [UNVERIFIED], log as a finding

Step 5: Spot check sample

After the systematic pass, randomly select 5 percent of claims (minimum 5, maximum 20) and have a second pass of retrieval done. This catches cases where the first verification pass had a systematic error.

Step 6: Log the verification

Add an auditable verification log. Each row must include citation, claim, retrieval method, Bates page, source date if visible, supporting excerpt, result, and corrective action. Also add a count summary to the methodology section:

Citation verification: [N] total citations, [N] independently page-verified,
[N] vault-search-only, [N] spot-checked, [N] flagged UNVERIFIED, [N] corrected
or removed. Verification completed [date].

The numbers tell the attorney how confident to be. A chronology with 200 verified citations and zero flags is suspicious (no one bats 1.000 against real records). A chronology with 200 claims and 50 UNVERIFIED flags suggests retrieval was unreliable and the attorney should rerun.

Verification Examples

Example 1: Citation verified

Draft:

Patient was diagnosed with C5-C6 disc herniation. [SMITH00203]

Verification: Re-retrieve SMITH00203. Source contains MRI report with impression "C5-C6 disc herniation with left foraminal narrowing."

Action: Verified. No change.

Example 2: Claim partially supported

Draft:

Patient was diagnosed with severe C5-C6 disc herniation requiring surgery. [SMITH00203]

Verification: Source mentions C5-C6 disc herniation but says nothing about severity or surgery.

Action: Narrow the claim:

Patient was diagnosed with C5-C6 disc herniation. [SMITH00203]

The "severity" and "surgery" elements either need their own citation or need to be removed.

Example 3: Quoted text differs

Draft:

Dr. Chen opined that the herniation was "directly caused by the collision." [SMITH00892]

Verification: Source actually says "causally related to the motor vehicle collision."

Action: Correct the quote:

Dr. Chen opined that the herniation was "causally related to the motor vehicle
collision." [SMITH00892]

This matters. "Directly caused" and "causally related" mean different things in tort law.

Example 4: Bates range does not exist

Draft:

Patient reported headaches at the ER visit. [SMITH00050]

Verification: SMITH production runs SMITH00001 through SMITH00047. SMITH00050 does not exist.

Action: Mark UNVERIFIED and log:

Patient reported headaches at the ER visit. [UNVERIFIED - original citation
SMITH00050 not present in production]

This is also a finding for Strategic Analysis: production may be missing pages.

Operating Environments

Bates-stamped RAG (case.dev native)

Default. All examples above assume this environment.

Local PDF files without Bates stamps

Use file name plus page number in the same bracket format:

Patient reported neck pain. [smith_records.pdf p.45]

State the citation scheme in the document header. Verification pass logic is identical; "re-retrieve" means open the PDF to the cited page.

Mixed Bates and non-Bates sources

Be consistent within a section. Prefer Bates where available. If both must coexist, the methodology section must explain the convention.

No source access (degraded mode)

If the work product is being produced from records summarized in context only, mark the entire output [CITATION UNAVAILABLE - produced from in-context summary only] at the top. The verification pass cannot run. Recommend the attorney rerun against full records.

Troubleshooting

  • Bates range is missing from the production: Remove the invented range, mark the claim [UNVERIFIED], and log the missing page range as a production gap.
  • Quotation does not match the source: Correct the quote verbatim or convert it to a paraphrase with citation; never preserve cleaned-up quote text.
  • Retrieval is flaky across passes: Keep the claim only if it appeared in records, mark it [UNVERIFIED], and note the retrieval instability in methodology.
  • Multiple sources support one claim: Use one bracket with comma-separated Bates locations rather than repeating the same sentence.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

中国大陆地区法院类案快速检索与《案件检索报告》(DOCX)生成技能。以案件五项要点(案由/法律关系、争议焦点、关键事实、我方诉请与诉讼地位、请求权基础法条)为检索锚点,经一次四问确认即开工(其中**检索地域范围**与**裁判时间范围**为强制选择题,默认范围为「2021年1月1日以后裁判的浙江省范围内的法院案例」,用户点选默认后须回显该范围提示);按**请求权基础、法律关系、案件事实三要素**判定高匹配——用户**指定**检索特定结果的案例时结果相似度计入评分(四要素满分 10 分),用户**未指定**时结果相似度不作为高匹配考虑因素(三要素满分 8 分);r1 判定须**核对法条版本与时间效力**,援引已失效旧法条者不得给满分;以语义向量检索为主召回、精确结构检索为条件兜底,本地脚本加权打分后按「得分率 > 法院层级 > 审判程序 > 裁判日期」排序,并检测**同院同日同标题的重复入库**案件、疑似重复者不占入报名额;截取匹配度最高的 5–10 例类案,逐案调详情核验案号并摘录判词原文,最后直接输出含页脚页码的 DOCX 报告(默认保存至桌面)。全流程人工确认 1 次、检索类调用控制在 2 次召回 + ≤10 次详情以内,报告阶段检索冻结。未指定结果时三要素高匹配而结果相反者亦会入报(逐例标注结果方向),指定结果时结果相反者一律剔除;报告内以两处固定声明披露「未设不利先例定向检索路径」的局限。当用户要求「快速检索类似案例」「找几个正向案例」「快速版案例检索报告」「检索 5 到 10 个类案并出报告」「出一份类案检索报告 docx」时使用。需要四象限归位、反向案例定向检索、补充召回多轮迭代或 14 分制硬软条件精判时,应使用完整版技能「案例检索报告Plus」而非本技能。基于华宇元典法律数据 MCP。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

88查企业风险查询与分析工具 —— 专注于中国大陆企业的法务风险查询与分析,覆盖经营异常、行政处罚、监管措施、被执行人、失信被执行人、司法案件等风险类型。支持公司名称、统一社会信用代码、companyId 三种输入方式,自动完成风险查询并输出结构化风险分析总结。 触发场景:仅当用户意图为查询企业风险/法务风险时触发。包括但不限于:企业风险查询、公司风险、经营异常、行政处罚、监管措施、被执行人、失信被执行人、司法风险、风险扫描、风险评估、企业合规审查、风险报告、XX公司有什么风险、XX公司安全吗、XX公司有没有处罚、XX公司被执行过吗。 不触发场景:纯粹的企业信息查询(如查公司、搜企业、工商信息、注册资本、法人代表、股东结构、专利商标等)不应触发本技能,请使用其他 cha88 系列工具。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

Manages Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative deposition workflows — drafting notice topics with reasonable particularity, building examination outlines, defending designees, handling objections, and preserving binding admissions for summary judgment or trial. Use when drafting or responding to 30(b)(6) notices, selecting and preparing designees, building topic-by-topic outlines, or triaging scope and privilege disputes. Trigger keywords: 30(b)(6), corporate representative deposition, topic list, designee, notice analysis, deposition objections, corporate admissions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

Guides taking and defending Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative depositions. Drafts topic lists with reasonable particularity, builds examination outlines for binding corporate admissions, analyzes noticed topics for objections, and prepares designees. Use when drafting 30(b)(6) notices, preparing corporate deposition topics, selecting or preparing designees, or defending corporate representative depositions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

Drafts FDA 510(k) Premarket Notification submissions demonstrating substantial equivalence under 21 CFR Part 807. Supports Traditional, Special, and Abbreviated pathways. Use when preparing Class II medical device regulatory filings, substantial equivalence analyses, or FDA premarket submissions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

Drafts a recordable Abstract of Judgment to create a judgment lien on a debtor's real property. Extracts party names, monetary components, and judgment details from case documents, then applies jurisdiction-specific formatting and certification requirements. Use post-judgment in commercial litigation when enforcing monetary awards, perfecting judgment liens, or preparing lien filings with the county recorder.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

CSlawyer1985 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する