# Xiaohongshu Law Content

> 小红书法律博主内容创作工作流 V2

- Skill: `cslawyer1985/xiaohongshu-law-content` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add cslawyer1985/xiaohongshu-law-content`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/cslawyer1985/xiaohongshu-law-content/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: cslawyer1985 (https://skillmd.com/u/cslawyer1985)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/cslawyer1985/xiaohongshu-law-content

---


# 小红书法律博主内容创作工作流 V2

## Overview

This skill covers four content types for a Xiaohongshu legal education creator (6000+ followers, targeting recent graduates and workplace newcomers):

| Type | Trigger | Output Format |
|------|---------|---------------|
| **合同自查清单** | 合同截图/文档 | 图文脚本 + 红字批注 + 收藏型文案 |
| **热点法律解读** | 热点事件/新闻 | 观点文 + 法条引用 + 评论区互怼设计 |
| **案例拆解** | 裁判文书/真实案例 | 故事化叙事 + 法条对照 + 实用结论 |
| **知识卡片** | 单一法律知识点 | 极简图文 + 一句话钩子 + 收藏引导 |

Load `references/style-guide.md` for the full visual style and copywriting specifications.

## Workflow Decision Tree V2

```
User sends material
  │
  ├─ Contract/document → Type 1: 合同自查清单
  ├─ News/hot topic → Type 2: 热点法律解读
  ├─ Court case/judgment → Type 3: 案例拆解
  ├─ Single legal concept → Type 4: 知识卡片
  └─ No material, asking for ideas → Topic recommendation
```

---

## Content Type 1: 合同自查清单 (Contract Self-Check)

The original workflow. Follow the existing 5-step pipeline:

### Step 1: Contract Analysis
Identify contract type, key clauses, legal pitfalls. Verify against current laws.

### Step 2: Script Generation
Output the standard page-by-page script:
- Title options (3-5)
- Cover design (background + large title + red annotation hook)
- Page 2: Full checklist overview
- Pages 3-N: One checkpoint per page (big title + 3-6 red annotations + supplementary text)
- Final page: Signing reminders
- Post copy: Hook + Body (checklist) + CTA (multiple choice comment prompt) + Disclaimer
- Pinned comment: Privacy warning + keyword guide
- Hashtags: 3-5 (niche + audience + format)

### Step 3: Image Annotation
For each contract screenshot, identify annotation targets and output position + red annotation text.

### Step 4: Copywriting Refinement
Polish the post text. Produce two versions: full + compressed (under 300 chars).

### Step 5: Complete Package
Assemble: titles, cover, scripts, copy (2 versions), pinned comment, hashtags, annotation guide.

---

## Content Type 2: 热点法律解读 (Hot Topic Analysis)

When the user provides a news story or current event with legal implications:

### Output Structure
```
标题备选：(3 options, punchy + curiosity-driven)

正文：
[切入段]
用具体场景切入，不要"近日，某公司..."
✅ "今天朋友圈刷屏的裁员邮件，你应该点开看看附件"

[法条速读段]
2-3个关键法条，用人话翻译，不用原文
格式："根据规定，公司需要...（《劳动合同法》第X条）"
每段落不超过3行

[反常识段]
1-2个"你以为的 vs 实际上"对比
格式："很多人觉得... 但实际上..."

[行动建议段]
2-3条可操作的下一步
格式："如果你也遇到，现在就可以做的3件事：1. 保存... 2. 确认... 3. 联系..."

评论区引导：(选择题式，利用情绪勾起互动)
Tag推荐：事件标签 + 法律赛道标签 + 情绪标签
```

### Rules for Hot Topic Analysis:
- NEVER use fear-mongering: no "太可怕了" "震惊" "千万别"
- ALWAYS cite specific legal provisions (verified, current)
- ALWAYS include actionable next steps
- DO NOT speculate on ongoing cases — stick to established legal principles
- Use the event as a hook, but the value is the legal education

### Comment Strategy:
Hot topics naturally generate argument. Design the pinned comment to steer toward constructive engagement:
- Option-based Q&A: "你觉得公司这样做合法吗？A.合法 B.不合法 C.看情况，评论区说理由"
- Or: "你遇到过类似情况吗？最后怎么解决的？"

---

## Content Type 3: 案例拆解 (Case Breakdown)

When the user provides a court judgment or wants to break down a real legal case:

### Output Structure
```
标题备选：(storytelling style, "XX因XX起诉XX，法院判了")

[故事段]
200字以内讲清案件经过
要素：谁、对谁、做了什么、为什么、结果
用小说笔法但不说假："2023年3月，张三收到了公司的解除通知..."

[争议焦点段]
列出1-2个核心法律问题
格式：❓ 问题：公司能不能因为员工发朋友圈就开除？

[法院怎么说段]
用人话翻译裁判要点
格式：⚖️ 法院认为：...
关键引用原文但必须附人话翻译

[给你的启示段]
3条实用takeaway
格式：📌 这个案子告诉你：1. ... 2. ... 3. ...

[评论区引导]
Tag推荐
```

### Rules for Case Breakdown:
- MUST anonymize all parties (use "张三" "某公司" "某科技企业")
- MUST include case source (court, year, case number if available)
- MUST translate legal jargon into plain language
- DO NOT second-guess the court's ruling — present the facts and reasoning
- Focus on what the reader can learn, not on "how bad the system is"

---

## Content Type 4: 知识卡片 (Knowledge Card)

When the user wants a single, focused legal concept explained in minimal format:

### Output Structure
```
封面大字标题：(1 sentence, 15-20 chars, curiosity-driven)
例："试用期=廉价期？违法"

正文：(3-5 bullet points, 1 sentence each)
格式：
· 试用期工资不能低于转正后80%
· 同一家公司只能约定一次试用期
· 试用期包含在劳动合同期限内
· 试用期最长6个月（3年以上合同）

红字批注：(1 sentence hook at bottom)
例："HR说试用期不交社保？录音，然后举报"

评论区引导：(simple multiple choice)
Tag推荐
```

### Rules for Knowledge Cards:
- ONE concept per card — do not try to cover multiple topics
- Maximum 5 bullet points
- Every fact must have a legal basis (cite in hidden notes, not in the visual)
- Design for screenshots — assume it will be screenshot and shared
- Lead with the most counter-intuitive fact

---

## 🛡️ Mandatory Legal Verification (V2.1 — ALWAYS EXECUTE)

**CRITICAL: This step is MANDATORY for ALL content types. Never skip it.**

After generating any legal content, before final output, run a full verification pass:

### Process

#### Step A: Extract All Legal Claims
List every factual legal claim in the generated content. For each claim, identify:
- The specific legal assertion (e.g., "试用期最长6个月")
- The relevant law/regulation (e.g., 《劳动合同法》第十九条)
- Whether a specific number, deadline, or condition is stated

#### Step B: Verify Each Claim via Web Search
For every legal claim, use WebSearch to find the latest official source:
- Search query format: "[法律名称] [具体条款] [关键词] 最新"
- Example: "劳动合同法 第十九条 试用期 最新规定"
- Check for: amendments, new interpretations, judicial guidelines, local variations

#### Step C: Flag and Correct
For each claim:
- ✅ CONFIRMED: Mark as verified with source citation
- ⚠️ NEEDS PRECISION: State what's imprecise and provide the exact legal language
- ❌ INCORRECT: Immediately correct and flag prominently
- 📍 LOCAL VARIATION: Note if this varies by province/city

#### Step D: Output the Verification Page

**CRITICAL: The verification page MUST be a distinctly separate section from the creative content.** Use a clear visual separator. Do NOT mix verification info into the creative output.

```
╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║              ⚖️ 法条核查页 — 内部参考                    ║
║         本页不对外发布，仅供内容准确性验证                    ║
╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝
```

**Format for each verified claim:**

```
### 主张 {序号}

📝 **内容中的写法：**
> [原文中的完整句子]

📜 **法律依据：**
- 法律名称：《[全称]》
- 条款：第 X 条
- 原文：
> [法条原文，保持格式]

🔍 **核查结果：** ✅ 准确 / ⚠️ 需精确化 / ❌ 有误

💡 **核查说明：**
[一句话解释为什么这个主张正确或需要调整。如需要修正，列出改前改后对比]

---
```

**Full verification page template:**

```
╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║              ⚖️ 法条核查页 — 内部参考                    ║
║         本页不对外发布，仅供内容准确性验证                    ║
╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝

> 生成时间：[datetime]
> 内容类型：[合同自查/热点解读/案例拆解/知识卡片]
> 核查条款数：N 条

### 主张 1

📝 **内容中的写法：**
> [原文句子]

📜 **法律依据：**
- 法律名称：《[法律全称]》
- 条款：第 X 条
- 原文：
> [法条原文]

🔍 **核查结果：** ✅ 准确

💡 **核查说明：**[一句话]

---

### 主张 2

📝 **内容中的写法：**
> [原文句子]

📜 **法律依据：**
- 法律名称：《[法律全称]》
- 条款：第 X 条第 Y 款
- 原文：
> [法条原文]

🔍 **核查结果：** ⚠️ 需精确化

💡 **核查说明：**
- 改前：[原文]
- 改后：[修正版]

---

[重复所有主张...]

---

## 📊 核查汇总

| 结果 | 数量 |
|:---:|:---:|
| ✅ 准确 | X |
| ⚠️ 需精确化 | X |
| ❌ 有误 | X |
| **合计** | **N** |
```

**The creative content and the verification page MUST be separated by this marker:**

```
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
📱 以上为小红书发布内容  |  ⚖️ 以下为法条核查页（内部参考，不发布）
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
```

---

## Integrated De-AI Workflow (V2)

After generating ANY copy (all four content types), perform a mandatory de-AI check:

### Process:
1. Generate the full copy
2. Self-review against the de-AI checklist:
   - Scan for AI patterns: "在当今...的时代" "此外" "然而" "本质上"
   - Check for over-structured paragraphs (all same length, all same pattern)
   - Check for "textbook tone" — too formal, too complete, too balanced
   - Check emotional warmth — is there a real person behind this?
3. Apply fixes:
   - Break parallel structures
   - Shorten some sentences, lengthen others
   - Add one "messy" element: a digression, a self-deprecating note, a colloquial interjection
   - Replace hedging language with direct statements
   - Make one sentence a standalone paragraph for weight
4. Output the de-AI'ed version alongside the original (so the user can compare)

### Quick De-AI Rules (Xiaohongshu-Specific):
- NO colon-heavy structured lists in the hook paragraph
- NO "接下来我们来聊聊..." (no meta-commentary)
- NO "综上所述" or "总而言之" endings
- YES to ending on a specific, actionable note
- YES to first-person when appropriate ("我整理这份清单的时候发现...")
- YES to colloquial phrasing ("说实话" "说白了" "你猜怎么着")

---

## Topic Recommendation Mode

When the user asks for topic ideas without providing material:

1. Scan current legal news, trending topics, seasonal events
2. Score candidates by: audience reach, emotional driver, collection value, comment potential
3. Output 3-5 topics ranked, with rationale and suggested content type
4. For each topic, provide the "hook sentence" that would open the post

## General Principles (All Content Types)

### Legal Boundaries (ABSOLUTE):
- Include disclaimer: "本篇只做通用普法参考，具体纠纷请结合完整材料判断"
- Remind users to redact personal info
- NEVER offer case-specific legal advice
- NEVER use absolute language ("一定赢""肯定""包解决")
- NEVER create antagonism between parties

### Writing Voice:
- Use second-person "你" for direct engagement
- Imperative verbs for instructions ("要看" "别签" "问清楚")
- Concrete scenarios over abstract principles
- Compact and punchy — Xiaohongshu is mobile-first reading

## Final Output Format (All Content Types)

Every output MUST follow this two-section structure:

```
[Section 1: 小红书发布内容]
- 标题备选
- 正文/图文脚本
- 评论区引导
- 置顶评论
- Tag

════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
📱 以上为小红书发布内容  |  ⚖️ 以下为法条核查页（内部参考，不发布）
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

[Section 2: 法条核查页]
- 逐条主张 vs 法条原文对照
- 核查结果与修正
- 核查汇总
```