Argentine Supreme Court citation network analysis using JurisRank — a peer-reviewed PageRank algorithm with temporal decay for measuring jurisprudential authority. Ranks precedents by citation influence, traces doctrinal evolution, and detects constitutional drift. Published methodology: JCLLT (DOI: 10.47852/bonviewJCLLT62027951). Activate with: which cases to cite, rank precedents, case authority, doctrinal evolution, Argentine Supreme Court, CSJN jurisprudence, citation network, leading case, legal research Argentina.
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。
JurisRank is a computational tool for measuring the authority of Argentine court decisions through citation network analysis. Its methodology is peer-reviewed and published in the Journal of Computational Law and Legal Technology:
Lerer, I.A. (2026). "Computational Detection of Constitutional Drift: Network Analysis and Semantic Measurement of Argentine Supreme Court Jurisprudence (1922–2025)." Journal of Computational Law and Legal Technology. DOI: 10.47852/bonviewJCLLT62027951
Academic validation: κ = 0.83 inter-coder reliability · k-fold cross- validation (k=5) · 73.2% mean accuracy · Monte Carlo simulations (n=1,000).
License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
| Algorithm | Purpose |
|---|---|
| JurisRank | PageRank + temporal decay — recent citations weighted higher |
| RootFinder | Ancestral Borrowing Analysis Network — traces doctrinal genealogy |
| Legal-Memespace | Principal Component Analysis — maps multidimensional doctrine |
| Score | Meaning | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|
| > 0.8 | Leading case — highest citation authority | Cite first, with score |
| 0.6–0.8 | Widely cited — strong precedential weight | Cite with score |
| 0.4–0.6 | Relevant — moderate authority | Cite with note |
| < 0.4 | Limited authority — outlier or isolated | Orientation only |
| Not found | No network presence detected | Declare absence of precedent |
When multiple cases address the same issue, JurisRank identifies which carry the most authority in the citation network → cite the most influential first, in ranked order.
Trace how CSJN or appellate court doctrine evolved on a specific topic. Identify whether the most recent decision continues or breaks from prior doctrine.
Verify whether precedents cited by opposing counsel are genuinely authoritative or low-influence outliers.
Detect shifts in citation patterns that signal doctrinal erosion or realignment — original application from the JCLLT paper.
1. Identify topic or specific cases to analyze
2. Query JurisRank API:
GET https://api.jurisrank.com/v1/cases?query=<topic>
POST https://api.jurisrank.com/v1/analyze-authority {"case_id": "..."}
3. Interpret Authority Score and citation network position
4. Apply RootFinder for genealogy if doctrinal evolution is needed
5. Produce ranked analysis with citation recommendations
JurisRank implements groundedness verification per the Stanford Legal AI Benchmark (Magesh et al., 2024):
Before including any case in the analysis:
Never cite a case not found in the JurisRank network without explicitly declaring it as unverified.
JURISRANK ANALYSIS — [Topic]
Date: [date] | Tool: JurisRank (Lerer, 2026, JCLLT)
## RANKED PRECEDENTS BY AUTHORITY
| Case | Court | Year | Authority Score | Network Position |
|------|-------|------|----------------|-----------------|
| ... | CSJN | ... | 0.92 | Leading case |
## DOCTRINAL EVOLUTION
[Timeline: how doctrine developed]
## CITATION NETWORK
[Which cases cite each other; doctrinal clusters]
## RECOMMENDATION
[Which cases to cite · in what order · why]
Ignacio Adrián Lerer is an Argentine attorney and independent researcher. JurisRank was developed as part of research on computational legal analysis published in peer-reviewed journals. The tool is registered with Argentina's DNDA (copyright registry) and has a patent application pending at INPI Argentina.
Contact: justitia.com.ar
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。
概要と使いどころ
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.
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。
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.
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。
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.
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。
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.
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。
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.
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。
Adversarially stress-tests a legal text — a contract, statute, regulation, or judicial opinion — for interpretive ambiguity: it finds the seams where the people governed by it will later disagree about what it means and turns each into a concrete dispute scenario with both sides' arguments, the likely outcome, and a fix. Use it whenever someone wants to pressure-test, red-team, audit, or find weak spots, loopholes, gaps, ambiguities, or drafting problems in a legal document; whenever a drafter wants to tighten a contract, statute, regulation, or opinion before it issues; whenever a litigator wants to mine an opinion or contract for arguments; or whenever someone hands over a legal text and asks where it will be fought over or for issue-spotting. Trigger it for contract review, statutory-ambiguity analysis, judicial-opinion scope analysis, and drafting QA — even if the user never says "stress-test" or "ambiguity."
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。