| name | proposition-checking |
| title | proposition-checking |
| description | Use when users say "does this authority support the point", "check propositions", "fact-check this argument", "verify record support", or need cited cases, statutes, exhibits, transcripts, emails, or pleadings checked against legal or factual propositions. |
| author | LegalQuants |
| author_url | https://github.com/LegalQuants/lq-skills/tree/main/skills/proposition-checking |
| license | Apache-2.0 |
| version | 0.1.0 |
| execution_mode | open |
| jurisdiction | general |
| practice | litigation |
| language | en |
| tags | ["briefs","citations","factual-record","proposition-checking","hallucination-detection"] |
proposition-checking
When to Use
- A brief, skeleton argument, motion, memo, advice note, or witness statement makes propositions tied to citations.
- The user wants to know whether cited cases, statutes, exhibits, or witness evidence actually support the statement made.
- A citation exists, but the concern is misuse rather than fabrication.
- The user asks whether a quotation, paraphrase, or record reference is accurate.
This skill checks support. It does not predict who wins and does not replace legal judgment.
Audience and Work Shape
Audience: litigators, legal researchers, trainees, and paralegals checking draft arguments or evidence summaries for lawyer review.
Work shape: pattern-matched source checking with accretive judgment. The skill maps propositions to sources and grades support; it does not make the legal argument for the user.
Legal Failure Modes
- Legal support, not legal advice: support classification is a verification aid, not a merits opinion.
- Privilege/confidentiality: drafts, exhibits, transcripts, and advice notes may be privileged or confidential; use approved environments and mark source limitations.
- Accountability: the responsible lawyer decides whether to keep, narrow, replace, or abandon the proposition.
Access Modes
This skill works in three modes:
- Live source mode - use browser, web search, MCP, API, or other configured access to retrieve authorities, statutes, rules, or public records.
- User-supplied source mode - use uploaded or pasted judgments, statutes, exhibits, pleadings, transcripts, correspondence, witness statements, or record bundles.
- No-source mode - extract propositions and citations, then prepare a verification queue. Do not classify support as
supported, unsupported, or contradicted.
If the source cannot be retrieved or supplied, mark the proposition unverified-source-unavailable. Do not assess source support from model memory.
How It Works
1. Separate propositions from citations
For each paragraph, extract:
- The proposition being asserted.
- Whether it is legal, factual, procedural, evidential, or mixed.
- The citation or record reference offered in support.
- Any direct quotation.
Do not treat a string citation as support until the proposition it supposedly supports is identified.
2. Retrieve or read the source
Use supplied source text first:
