legal-article-summary

name	legal-article-summary
language	en
description	Produces structured summaries of legal scholarship capturing thesis, methodology, key authorities, arguments, and significance. Use when summarizing law review articles, journal articles, case notes, or scholarship for research triage, case preparation, literature reviews, or CLE.

Legal Article Summary

Structured summary of legal scholarship preserving the article's analytical spine and practical significance. Default 500–800 words unless specified.

Quick Start

Gather before writing:

• Full article text or excerpts with page/section markers
• Citation data: author, title, journal, year, volume/issue, pages, DOI/URL
• Reader goal, length target, jurisdiction or doctrinal focus

Core Workflow

1. Extract

• Identify thesis and list article section headings
• Capture methodology (doctrinal, empirical, comparative, theoretical, policy critique); note dataset/sample/timeframe if empirical
• Extract foundational authorities (not mere examples)
• Flag modal language (may/might/could/suggests) and preserve it
• Note explicit limitations or boundary conditions
• Record proposed reforms or practice changes

2. Structure

Include only sections that exist in the article:

Section	Content
Citation	Author, title, journal, year, vol/issue, pages; DOI/URL if provided
Thesis / Question	One-sentence central claim or research question
Methodology / Approach	Type and key details
Major Arguments	3–6 points in author's sequence, 1–3 sentences each
Key Authorities	Statutes, cases, regulations, doctrines relied upon
Counterarguments / Limits	Acknowledged limitations, caveats, counterpoints
Conclusions / Recommendations	Findings separated from normative proposals
Significance / Implications	Contribution to scholarship and practical impact
Future Research	Only if author explicitly flags open questions

3. Write

**Citation:** {Author}, "{Title}," {Journal} {Year}, {Vol}({Issue}) {Pages}. {DOI/URL}

**Thesis / Question:** {One sentence}

**Methodology / Approach:** {Type; key details}

**Major Arguments / Findings:**
1. {Point}
2. {Point}
3. {Point}

**Key Authorities:** {Cases/statutes/regulations/doctrines}

**Counterarguments / Limitations:** {If any}

**Conclusions / Recommendations:** {Findings vs. proposals}

**Significance / Implications:** {Why it matters}

**Future Research:** {If stated}

Pitfalls and Checks

• Stay neutral; no critique unless requested
• Preserve author's emphasis and sequencing — do not reorder
• Quote sparingly; only when exact phrasing is decisive
• Separate empirical results from normative recommendations
• If jurisdiction is ambiguous, state it; default to U.S. only when clearly implied
• For theoretical articles, specify framework and assumptions instead of empirical details
• Summarize literature-review positioning in 1–2 sentences
• Flag uncertain citations with [VERIFY]

---

Key changes:

• Removed tags (not part of the Agent Skills spec frontmatter)
• Tightened description — removed redundant keyword stuffing while keeping discovery triggers
• Replaced "Prerequisites" with a compact "Quick Start" section
• Merged the separate "Extraction checklist" and "Output Structure" into a single three-step "Core Workflow" (Extract → Structure → Write)
• Renamed "Guidelines" to "Pitfalls and Checks" per best-practice section naming
• Removed prose preamble — overview is now two sentences
• Cut ~30% of tokens while preserving all domain-specific legal guidance