菜单
合规缺口跟踪框架——接收来自 policy-diff 的合规缺口录入， 追踪未关闭缺口的修复状态，向负责人发送到期提醒， 并在状态报告中呈现开口缺口和逾期项目。 被 gaps 和 comments skills 加载后执行实质性工作，不直接由用户调用。
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。
基于 SOC 职业分类
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/vivy-yi/Greater-China-Legal --skill gap-surfacer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。
正在显示 SKILL.md
刑事判决书生成——接收案件事实描述，调用8个原子能力，生成格式规范、论证严密的完整刑事判决书。 适用情形：用户要求"起草判决书"/"生成裁判文书"/"根据案卷写文书"。 核心流程：事实提取→概念理解→争议识别→法条检索→案例检索→演绎推理→格式适用→术语规范。 注意：本skill是刑事一审判决书专用模板，GCL不涉及实际司法文书输出，此skill仅作框架参考。
法律文书格式适用——起草格式规范的民事/刑事判决书，或识别文书类型并套用对应格式。 适用情形：起草判决书/生成裁判文书/写民事判决书/写刑事判决书。 核心：识别民事vs刑事→按七段式顺序起草→在需要处调用对应原子技能。 这是GCL各场景的文书输出层，与judgment-document-generation互补（后者专注刑事+8步流程，前者覆盖民刑+分段落格式规范）。
法律文书摘要——对判决书、裁定书、调解书、仲裁裁决书、行政处罚决定书进行结构化摘要。 适用情形：用户要求做摘要/提炼要点/生成裁判要旨/提取案件信息。 核心：六要素框架（案件信息+事实背景+争议焦点+法律依据+结论结果+说理过程），忠实原文，区分文书类型。 禁用：不得添加原文未载明的事实/观点/结论，不得出现主观评价性措辞。
| name | gap-surfacer |
| description | 合规缺口跟踪框架——接收来自 policy-diff 的合规缺口录入， 追踪未关闭缺口的修复状态，向负责人发送到期提醒， 并在状态报告中呈现开口缺口和逾期项目。 被 gaps 和 comments skills 加载后执行实质性工作，不直接由用户调用。 |
| user-invocable | false |
| argument-hint | [mode: ingest|status|close|accept] [参数] |
| legal_frame | cn-mainland |
| last_reviewed | 2026-06 |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| risk_level | medium |
| trigger_phrases | ["税务","所得税","增值税","转让定价"] |
Owner notifications: on by default. To opt an owner out, leave
owner_slackempty.
Before sending ANY Slack message (assignment notice, overdue reminder, bulk notification, status report):
Auto-send without confirmation is the most irreversible action in this plugin, sending content this plugin's own footer says may be wrong, to people who have no way to check. That combination does not get to skip review.
Matter context. Check ## Matter workspaces in the practice-level CLAUDE.md. If Enabled is ✗ (the default for in-house users), skip the rest of this paragraph — skills use practice-level context and the matter machinery is invisible. If enabled and there is no active matter, ask: "Which matter is this for? Run /regulatory-legal:matter-workspace switch <slug> or say practice-level." Load the active matter's matter.md for matter-specific context and overrides. Write outputs to the matter folder at ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/regulatory-legal/matters/<matter-slug>/. Never read another matter's files unless Cross-matter context is on.
Gaps get found and then forgotten. This skill tracks them until they're closed and notifies the people responsible for closing them.
Lives at ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/regulatory-legal/gap-tracker.yaml:
Note on comment-tracker.yaml:
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/regulatory-legal/comment-tracker.yamlis a sibling file owned by the comments skill. It is written to by reg-feed-watcher (which logs NPRMs automatically) and the comments skill (which tracks user-initiated comment decisions). This skill does not read or cross-reference it. If you modify the comment-tracker schema, update both actual consumers.
Never classify a gap as Overdue on an unverified rule. The 🔴 Overdue classification means "we missed a binding deadline." If the rule's status is unverified (policy-diff set status_verified: false, or the rule is >12 months old / past its applicability date with no currency confirmation), the deadline may not be binding. Use 🟡 "Review needed" and note: "If this rule is in force as published, this would be overdue by [N] days. Verify rule status before escalating." Route unverified-rule items to watch, not to the active overdue/due-soon buckets; the watch revisit cadence forces a rule-status check before the item can re-surface as a compliance gap.
gap_type semantics:
| Value | Meaning | Typical reminder cadence |
|---|---|---|
none | Policy already covers the requirement. Logged for audit trail only. Should be rare — if most entries are none, the diff is probably running against the wrong policy. | No auto-reminder. |
partial | Policy addresses the topic but doesn't fully cover the new requirement. Needs an amendment. | 30 days before due. |
full | Policy contradicts or silently omits the new requirement. Needs a rewrite or new section. | 30 days before due. |
new-policy | No existing policy covers this. Policy needs to be drafted. | 30 days before due. |
watch | Forward-looking item — ANPR, RFI, proposed rule not yet final. No compliance obligation today; policy work waits for the final rule. due: is a revisit date (typically the NPRM expected date or a one-year horizon), not a compliance deadline. | No auto-reminder; re-evaluate when an NPRM drops or at the revisit date. |
comment-decision | Pre-rulemaking comment decision pending — ANPR or NPRM where the team is deciding whether to file a comment. due: is the comment deadline. | 21 days before due (tighter than compliance gaps because comment-drafting windows are short). |
A watch or comment-decision entry is not a compliance gap — it's a tracking artifact for pre-rule items that the watch skill and comments skill produce. Surface them in the status report in their own bucket so counsel reading at 7am can tell at a glance which items are "fix this before a regulator notices" vs. "keep an eye on this."
When policy-diff finds gaps, append them to gap-tracker.yaml. De-dupe — same requirement + same policy = same gap, don't double-count.
After ingesting, notify the owner:
If Slack MCP is available and owner_slack is set:
Send a Slack DM to the gap owner — but only after the per-send confirmation at the top of this file. Preview the message to the user, wait for an explicit yes, then send:
📋 New compliance gap assigned to you
Gap: [GAP-ID] — [requirement, one sentence]
Regulation: [name + link]
Policy affected: [policy name or "new policy needed"]
Due: [reg effective date]
View full gap tracker: /regulatory-legal:gaps
Set notified: true in the tracker entry after sending.
If Slack MCP is not available: note in the status report that owner notification was not sent and flag for manual follow-up.
[WORK-PRODUCT HEADER — per plugin config ## Outputs — differs by role; see `## Who's using this`]
## Open Gaps — [date]
### Bottom line
[N gaps need action by [date] — top 3: X, Y, Z]
### 🔴 Overdue
| ID | Requirement | Policy | Owner | Due | Days over |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
### 🟠 Due in <30 days
[same]
### 🟡 Open
[same]
### 👀 Watch items (forward-looking — pre-rule)
[Pre-rule tracking — `watch` and `comment-decision` entries. These are not
compliance gaps. Surface separately so the overdue / due-soon bands contain
only real compliance deadlines.]
| ID | Item | Type (ANPR/NPRM/RFI) | Comment deadline | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
### In progress
[same]
### Recently closed
[last 5, with resolution]
---
**Oldest open gap:** [ID], [N] days
**Gaps by owner:** [breakdown]
**Owner notifications sent:** [N] / [N total gaps]
---
**Next step for each open gap:** `/regulatory-legal:policy-redraft` produces a marked-up policy redraft with `[verify]` tags and a change summary. It's a proposal for the policy owner's review — not a direct edit to source documents.
---
**Verify citations before relying on them.** Regulation citations in this tracker were AI-generated upstream (by reg-feed-watcher and policy-diff) and have not been checked against a primary source. Before closing or risk-accepting a gap — or citing one in an attestation, board report, or regulator response — confirm the underlying rule against Westlaw, your firm's research platform, or the issuing authority's website. AI-generated regulatory citations are sometimes fabricated, misquoted, or stale. Source tags carried forward from upstream (e.g., `[Federal Register]`, `[web search — verify]`) show where each citation originated; `verify` tags carry higher fabrication risk and should be checked first. Never strip the tags when surfacing gaps.
This skill reads gap-response owners and the escalation path from ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/regulatory-legal/CLAUDE.md. When a value it needs is empty or still [PLACEHOLDER]:
## Gap response process. Assign one with /regulatory-legal:cold-start-interview --redo or by editing ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/regulatory-legal/CLAUDE.md so new gaps get routed."owner: [unassigned] and append: "[N] gaps were ingested without an owner because the policy library doesn't name one for the affected policy. Fill in the Owner column in the policy library to route them."/regulatory-legal:cold-start-interview --redo or by editing ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/regulatory-legal/CLAUDE.md."Say nothing about config when the values are populated.
Due-date reminder logic (runs during status report and scheduled agent):
Reminder cadence is a function of gap_type — compliance gaps get a 30-day heads-up, comment-decision items get 21 days (tighter because the drafting window is shorter), watch items get no auto-reminder (re-evaluate when an NPRM drops).
For each gap with status "open" or "in-progress":
partial, full, new-policy, none: if due date is within 30 days and a reminder has not been sent in the last 7 days, PREVIEW a Slack DM (subject "⏰ Reminder: compliance gap due in [N] days") and wait for per-send confirm before sending.comment-decision: if comment deadline is within 21 days and a reminder has not been sent in the last 7 days, PREVIEW a Slack DM (subject "💬 Comment-decision deadline in [N] days") and wait for per-send confirm before sending.watch: no auto-reminder. Revisit when the tracker is reviewed or an NPRM is logged for the same regulation.comment-decision item and no comment was filed: flag as overdue, PREVIEW a Slack DM (wait for per-send confirm), and ask the owner to update to risk-accepted (deliberate no-comment) or closed (comment filed) with a note.Before closing a gap as resolved, or producing any output that certifies compliance with a regulatory requirement (internal attestation, board report, audit response, regulator response): Read ## Who's using this in ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/regulatory-legal/CLAUDE.md. If the Role is Non-lawyer:
Certifying compliance — or closing a gap as resolved — has legal consequences. The certification can be used against the company if it's later shown to be wrong, and premature closure leaves exposure unaddressed. Have you reviewed this with an attorney? If yes, proceed. If no, here's a brief to bring to them:
- The gap (requirement, source, what the policy diff found)
- What the proposed resolution does and does not cover
- Any residual gap or ambiguity
- Open questions and what's unresolved
- What could go wrong (overbroad certification, unresolved residual obligation, inconsistent prior position)
- What to ask the attorney (is this truly closed; should we risk-accept with rationale instead; do we need outside-counsel concurrence)
If you need to find a lawyer: your professional regulator's referral service is the fastest starting point (state bar in the US; SRA/Bar Standards Board in England & Wales; Law Society in Scotland/NI/Ireland/Canada/Australia; or your jurisdiction's equivalent).
Do not mark a gap closed or produce a compliance certification past this gate without an explicit yes. Status reports and tracking views do not require the gate.
/regulatory-legal:gaps --close GAP-001
Resolution: "Policy updated v2.3, approved [date]"
Updates status to closed, records resolution and close date.
Sometimes the answer is "we're not going to fix this." That's a valid decision — but it should be documented.
/regulatory-legal:gaps --accept GAP-002
Rationale: "Requirement applies only to [condition we don't meet]. Revisit if [trigger]."
Accepted by: [name with authority]
Status → risk-accepted. Stays in the tracker (not deleted) but falls out of the open-gaps report.
The agent's digest includes the gap count and oldest-open-gap age. If anything goes overdue, that goes at the top of the digest. The agent also runs the due-date reminder check and sends any outstanding Slack notifications.
End with the next-steps decision tree per CLAUDE.md ## Outputs. Customize the options to what this skill just produced — the five default branches (draft the X, escalate, get more facts, watch and wait, something else) are a starting point, not a lock-in. The tree is the output; the lawyer picks.
If the tracker surfaced more than ~10 open gaps, or any time the user asks: offer the dashboard (see CLAUDE.md ## Outputs → Dashboard offer for data-heavy outputs). Shape the offer for this output — counts by severity, a timeline of gaps by due date, and a sortable grid with owner, status, and last-touched date.