菜单
Internal skill for academic legal writing. Loaded by /writing when style=legal. Based on Volokh's "Academic Legal Writing".
默认使用会先检查来源的 Prompt；你也可以切换为直接命令，或下载本地副本。
决定是否安装前，请先阅读 SKILL.md，以及 SkillsMP 当前展示的配套文件。
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
直接命令不会经过审查 Prompt；运行前请先检查来源。
npx skills add https://github.com/ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open --skill writing-legal命令会保持在同一行。复制前请横向滚动并检查完整内容。
想先保存到本地？可下载 SkillsMP 当前能够提供的文件。
Use when retrieving arbitration institutional rules (ICC, LCIA, SCC, SIAC, HKIAC, VIAC, МКАС/МАК при ТПП України, UNCITRAL) — fetching current version, verifying redaction applicable to the date of arbitration agreement, constructing URLs for official rule texts
Use when choosing the Polish legal regime for letters, requests, applications, complaints, petitions, public-information requests, KPA filings, PPSA complaints, RODO access requests, registry extracts, court-file access, tax/ZUS/cudzoziemcy/USC procedures, or professional lawyer letters. Prevents mixing UDIP, KPA, PPSA, RODO, registry, special-procedure, and advocate/radca letter regimes.
Use when preparing applications for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Poland, applications for setting aside arbitral awards under KPC art. 1205–1211, or opposing such applications — mapping Article V of the 1958 New York Convention to art. 1214–1215 of the Polish KPC, identifying grounds for refusal, structuring public policy arguments
基于 SOC 职业分类
正在显示 SKILL.md
| name | writing-legal |
| title | Academic Legal Writing |
| description | Internal skill for academic legal writing. Loaded by /writing when style=legal. Based on Volokh's "Academic Legal Writing". |
| author | edwinhu |
| author_url | https://github.com/edwinhu/workflows/tree/main/skills/writing-legal |
| license | MIT |
| version | 0.1.0 |
| execution_mode | open |
| jurisdiction | general |
| practice | general |
| language | en |
Style guide for law review articles, seminar papers, and legal scholarship based on Eugene Volokh's Academic Legal Writing.
Step 1: Load base writing rules
Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../skills/writing/SKILL.md and follow its instructions.
Step 2: Check for active workflow
If .planning/ACTIVE_WORKFLOW.md exists and workflow: writing, update style: legal.
If no .planning/PRECIS.md exists in the project:
/writing to set up thesis, audience, and claims first."Step 3: Apply legal-specific rules below
Invoke this skill for:
For general writing: Use /writing skill (Strunk & White)
For economics/finance: Use /writing-econ skill (McCloskey)
When generating Word documents (.docx), you MUST load the /docx skill first. The docx skill provides proper document manipulation capabilities.
Template location: templates/law_review_template.docx
When creating or converting a docx, load references/formatting.md for heading styles, body text styles, pandoc --reference-doc usage, and the document creation gate function.
Before creating ANY Word document for legal writing:
/docx skilltemplates/law_review_template.docx as the baseIf you created a blank docx without the template, DELETE IT and START OVER with the template.
If your draft makes a prescriptive claim but doesn't address obvious objections, DELETE the section and START OVER. Legal scholarship requires anticipating and answering counterarguments, not ignoring them.
If you cite a case/statute/historical fact via an intermediate source (law review, treatise), DELETE the citation and READ THE ORIGINAL. Even Supreme Court opinions misstate precedents.
| Excuse | Reality | Do Instead |
|---|---|---|
| "This article discusses..." | Bores reader instantly | START with concrete problem or controversy |
| "Table-of-contents paragraph helps" | Readers skip it | INTEGRATE roadmap into intro |
| "Background section comes first" | Not before establishing relevance | SHOW problem first, background second |
| "Case-by-case summary is thorough" | Tedious and unhelpful | SYNTHESIZE: "Courts hold X except Y" |
| "Counterargument would hurt my claim" | Ignoring it hurts worse | CONFRONT and refine claim |
| "Treatise summary is good enough" | Treatises have errors | READ original cases |
| "Arguably" makes my point | Acknowledges controversy without arguing | MAKE the argument explicitly |
| "This metaphor is clear" | Metaphors hide incomplete logic | UNPACK: what's the actual argument? |
Citing a case without reading its holding is NOT HELPFUL — the user submits a paper with a wrong citation and reviewers destroy their credibility. Relying on headnotes or training data is not legal research.
Content Red Flags:
When to delete and restart:
How to restart:
Old: "This article discusses privacy concerns in Fourth Amendment doctrine..."
New: "When police drones photograph backyards, does the Fourth Amendment require a warrant?
Courts disagree, but three features of aerial surveillance suggest yes."
Start with CONCRETE QUESTION that matters, not abstract topic description.
The introduction serves three functions:
Requirements:
Anti-patterns:
Synthesize precedents; do not summarize each case sequentially. Focus only on facts and rules necessary for the argument.
| Problem | Solution |
|---|---|
| Summarizing each case | Synthesize: "Courts generally hold X, except when Y" |
| Mini-treatise on the area | Only what's needed for the claim |
| 80% background, 20% claim | Balance must favor the original contribution |
For prescriptive claims: Show the proposal is both doctrinally sound AND good policy.
Use a test suite: Apply the proposal to concrete scenarios (easy cases, hard cases, edge cases) to demonstrate it works.
Confront counterarguments:
Connect to broader issues:
Keep conclusions brief. The real work is rewriting the introduction after the draft is complete, ensuring it accurately reflects the article's contributions.
Common logical problems in legal writing (see references/volokh-distilled.md for detailed examples):
| Problem | Issue |
|---|---|
| Categorical assertions | "Always" and "never" invite counterexamples |
| Unpacked metaphors | "Slippery slope" and "chilling effect" hide incomplete arguments |
| Missing logical pieces | Syllogisms that skip steps (subject to scrutiny ≠ fails scrutiny) |
| Universal criticisms | "Chilling effect" applies to most laws—explain why this one matters |
| Undefined abstractions | "Privacy," "paternalism," "democratic legitimacy" need definitions |
| "Arguably" as argument | Acknowledges controversy but doesn't make the case |
Never rely on intermediate sources for cases, statutes, or historical facts. Even Supreme Court opinions misstate precedents.
| Source Type | Rule |
|---|---|
| Cases/statutes | Read the original; don't trust treatises or other cases |
| Historical facts | Go to history books, not law review articles citing them |
| Scientific studies | Read the study, not the article summarizing it |
| Newspapers | Unreliable; track down underlying documents |
| Wikipedia | Use to find sources, but cite originals |
Avoid false synonyms: "murder" ≠ "homicide" ≠ "killing"; "foreign-born" ≠ "noncitizen"; "children" is ambiguous (0-14? 0-17? 0-24?).
Include necessary qualifiers: "falsely shouting fire" is quite different from "shouting fire."
Make clear when inferring:
Acknowledge the inference and defend it; don't hide it.
Surveys measure only what respondents said in response to specific questions. Valid surveys require:
"Online survey" and "Internet poll" are almost sure signs of invalidity.
| Principle | Application |
|---|---|
| Understate criticism | "Mistaken" not "idiotic"—overstating raises the burden of proof |
| Attack arguments, not people | "This argument fails" not "Volokh is wrong" |
| Avoid caricature | Quote adherents, not critics, when explaining a position |
See references/volokh-distilled.md for extended discussion of rhetorical problems.
| Problem | Solution |
|---|---|
| "This article discusses X" | Hook with concrete problem |
| Case-by-case summaries | Synthesize precedents |
| Undefended metaphors | Unpack the concrete mechanism |
| "Arguably" / "raises concerns" | Give the actual argument |
| Relying on intermediate source | Read original case/study |
| "Many children" | Specify: "111 children age 0-17" |
| "Correlation shows causation" | Explain why inference is valid |
| "Volokh's argument is idiotic" | "This argument seems unsound" |
For comprehensive guidance, consult:
references/formatting.md - Template formatting reference:
--reference-doc usagereferences/volokh-distilled.md - Extended Volokh guidance covering:
Load references/formatting.md when:
Load references/volokh-distilled.md when:
Required skills for document generation:
/docx - Load BEFORE creating any Word document/bluebook - Load when formatting legal citationsAfter completing any legal writing task, invoke /ai-anti-patterns to check for AI writing indicators. The /writing skill covers general prose principles (active voice, omit needless words) that complement this skill.