Generates machine_readable execution logic for Dutch law YAML files through an iterative generate-validate-test loop. Creates machine_readable sections, validates against the schema, runs BDD tests, and iterates until correct (up to 3 iterations). Use this skill proactively when: editing or creating machine_readable sections in law YAML files, working with corpus regulation files, or when user mentions 'generate', 'machine_readable', or wants to make a law executable. Activate automatically when user discusses law YAML files that need executable logic.
Writing rules for the regelrecht docs site (docs/). Use when writing or editing prose under docs/ — RFCs, guides, component docs, concept pages, and the NL/EN landing copy. Keeps docs prose free of AI-generated tells and consistent with the site's government-technical register. Not for code, commit messages, or PR descriptions.
Genereert uit een (semi-)gevalideerd regelrecht-corpus een geloofwaardige service-PoC (burger- + behandelaar-portaal, of een headless beslis-service) en zet die in als validatie-instrument met uitvoeringsexperts — om tastbaar te maken wat nodig is om een wet rechtvaardig in de praktijk te brengen, gezien vanuit de betrokkene. Gebruik dit als workshop-fase ná de logica-/scenariovalidatie (audit-products) om de dienstverlening-kant te valideren: welke service impliceert de wet, waar zit menselijk oordeel, welke last ligt bij de burger, welke termijnen, waar is de wet hard of onduidelijk. Dossier-agnostisch; de regelrecht-methode (hooks, legal_character, untranslatables, source/implements, type_spec, receipts) is de vaste taal. Voor de logica-/scenariovalidatie zelf: zie de zusterskill regelrecht-audit-products.
Audits whether a machine-readable regelrecht law model is faithful to the LETTER of the wettekst — and strictly separates the wettekst (leading) from the toelichting (Nota/Memorie van Toelichting; explanatory, not a norm). Runs in critical passes per article/lid and detects four deviation classes: toelichting-bleed (a modeled criterion that the letter only states as an open norm, or not at all), missing verbatim elements (a word/condition such as a "tenzij" or a qualifier dropped from the model), wrong legal_basis anchoring (an endpoint hung on a "kapstok"-article while the operative norm lives elsewhere), and verbatim-drift in text: (an ingetrokken/older redaction). Also detects positief-lid vs uitsluitings-lid conflicts and checks the chapeau for an explicit derogation rule ("zo nodig in afwijking van het eerste lid") before judging precedence. Classifies every finding as modelfout (fix), wettekst-gevolg (report, do not fix), or letter-vs-toelichting-question (jurist decides what is leading + revision signa
Performs a hallucination check on machine_readable sections by verifying every element traces back to the original legal text. Use this skill proactively when: machine_readable sections have been generated or modified, after /law-generate completes, when reviewing corpus YAML files for legal accuracy, or when user mentions "validate", "verify", or "hallucination check" for law YAML files. Activate automatically after editing machine_readable sections in corpus regulation YAML files.
Detects version drift between machine-readable law YAML files and the binding geldende wettekst on wetten.overheid.nl at the YAML's claimed valid_from. Catches the silent failure where authored content lags behind ingevoerde wijzigingen — a YAML dated 2025-01-01 still carrying pre-Stb.-X text. Activate as Step 0 of every regelrecht-stelselanalyse micro-cycle, before any YAML edit. Strict by design: no bypass, no normalization beyond whitespace within a single paragraph; the geldende wettekst is leading and is mirrored verbatim, including errata. Use proactively when starting a stelselanalyse cycle, before harvest/migrate/extend, or when user mentions "drift", "versie", "geldende tekst", or worries that a YAML may be stale relative to wetten.overheid.nl.
Builds and audits a concept-ontology for a regelrecht corpus to decide and verify reference types — cross-law source-binding vs intra-law source-binding vs open-norm leaf vs external-fact leaf — and to catch concept conflation across laws. Core principle: a value's reference type is fixed by WHO derives it, and a binding is sound only when producer and consumer denote the SAME concept; the lexical surface (the word in the text) is not the concept. Detects false friends (one term, different concepts — e.g. a register-based vs a factual "naar de omstandigheden"-based residence/ingezetene concept), orphan plain-params (a value a regulation actually derives, modeled as a brute input), negation/complement re-entry (¬X modeled as an independent leaf next to X), and duplication (one concept re-entered as several independent leafs, losing the single-source-of-truth invariant). Produces a law-level glossary and a stelsel-level concept map with sound same-concept binding edges and flagged lexical-match-but-concept-mism
Bouwt de audit- en workshop-producten waarmee juridische experts een machine-leesbare (regelrecht-YAML) vertaling van wet- en regelgeving valideren in een live sessie. Gebruik dit bij het voorbereiden van een expert-workshop of validatie-sessie over een dossier, het maken van een scope-/stelselanalyse, per-artikel audit-checklists, facilitator-materiaal, testcase-scenario's, of sessie-verslagen (intern + extern). Dossier-agnostisch; de regelrecht-methode (YAML, formules, untranslatables, source/override, legal_basis, engine-trace) is de vaste taal. Voor analytische desk-review van een corpus zonder live sessie (wetgevings-/stelselfouten, coverage, multi-agent review): zie de zusterskill regelrecht-stelselanalyse.