Legal Article Summary
Structured summary of legal scholarship preserving the article's analytical spine and practical significance. Default 500–800 words unless specified.
Quick Start
Gather before writing:
- Full article text or excerpts with page/section markers
- Citation data: author, title, journal, year, volume/issue, pages, DOI/URL
- Reader goal, length target, jurisdiction or doctrinal focus
Core Workflow
1. Extract
- Identify thesis and list article section headings
- Capture methodology (doctrinal, empirical, comparative, theoretical, policy critique); note dataset/sample/timeframe if empirical
- Extract foundational authorities (not mere examples)
- Flag modal language (may/might/could/suggests) and preserve it
- Note explicit limitations or boundary conditions
- Record proposed reforms or practice changes
2. Structure
Include only sections that exist in the article:
| Section |
Content |
| Citation |
Author, title, journal, year, vol/issue, pages; DOI/URL if provided |
| Thesis / Question |
One-sentence central claim or research question |
| Methodology / Approach |
Type and key details |
| Major Arguments |
3–6 points in author's sequence, 1–3 sentences each |
| Key Authorities |
Statutes, cases, regulations, doctrines relied upon |
| Counterarguments / Limits |
Acknowledged limitations, caveats, counterpoints |
| Conclusions / Recommendations |
Findings separated from normative proposals |
| Significance / Implications |
Contribution to scholarship and practical impact |
| Future Research |
Only if author explicitly flags open questions |
3. Write
**Citation:** {Author}, "{Title}," {Journal} {Year}, {Vol}({Issue}) {Pages}. {DOI/URL}
**Thesis / Question:** {One sentence}
**Methodology / Approach:** {Type; key details}
**Major Arguments / Findings:**
1. {Point}
2. {Point}
3. {Point}
**Key Authorities:** {Cases/statutes/regulations/doctrines}
**Counterarguments / Limitations:** {If any}
**Conclusions / Recommendations:** {Findings vs. proposals}
**Significance / Implications:** {Why it matters}
**Future Research:** {If stated}
Pitfalls and Checks
- Stay neutral; no critique unless requested
- Preserve author's emphasis and sequencing — do not reorder
- Quote sparingly; only when exact phrasing is decisive
- Separate empirical results from normative recommendations
- If jurisdiction is ambiguous, state it; default to U.S. only when clearly implied
- For theoretical articles, specify framework and assumptions instead of empirical details
- Summarize literature-review positioning in 1–2 sentences
- Flag uncertain citations with
[VERIFY]
Key changes:
- Removed
tags (not part of the Agent Skills spec frontmatter)
- Tightened
description — removed redundant keyword stuffing while keeping discovery triggers
- Replaced "Prerequisites" with a compact "Quick Start" section
- Merged the separate "Extraction checklist" and "Output Structure" into a single three-step "Core Workflow" (Extract → Structure → Write)
- Renamed "Guidelines" to "Pitfalls and Checks" per best-practice section naming
- Removed prose preamble — overview is now two sentences
- Cut ~30% of tokens while preserving all domain-specific legal guidance
1---2name: legal-article-summary3description: Produces structured summaries of legal scholarship capturing thesis, methodology, key authorities, arguments, and significance. Use when summarizing law review articles, journal articles, case notes, or scholarship for research triage, case preparation, literature reviews, or CLE.4---56# Legal Article Summary78Structured summary of legal scholarship preserving the article's analytical spine and practical significance. Default 500–800 words unless specified.910## Quick Start1112Gather before writing:13- Full article text or excerpts with page/section markers14- Citation data: author, title, journal, year, volume/issue, pages, DOI/URL15- Reader goal, length target, jurisdiction or doctrinal focus1617## Core Workflow1819### 1. Extract2021- Identify thesis and list article section headings22- Capture methodology (doctrinal, empirical, comparative, theoretical, policy critique); note dataset/sample/timeframe if empirical23- Extract foundational authorities (not mere examples)24- Flag modal language (may/might/could/suggests) and preserve it25- Note explicit limitations or boundary conditions26- Record proposed reforms or practice changes2728### 2. Structure2930Include only sections that exist in the article:3132| Section | Content |33|---|---|34| Citation | Author, title, journal, year, vol/issue, pages; DOI/URL if provided |35| Thesis / Question | One-sentence central claim or research question |36| Methodology / Approach | Type and key details |37| Major Arguments | 3–6 points in author's sequence, 1–3 sentences each |38| Key Authorities | Statutes, cases, regulations, doctrines relied upon |39| Counterarguments / Limits | Acknowledged limitations, caveats, counterpoints |40| Conclusions / Recommendations | Findings separated from normative proposals |41| Significance / Implications | Contribution to scholarship and practical impact |42| Future Research | Only if author explicitly flags open questions |4344### 3. Write4546```47**Citation:** {Author}, "{Title}," {Journal} {Year}, {Vol}({Issue}) {Pages}. {DOI/URL}4849**Thesis / Question:** {One sentence}5051**Methodology / Approach:** {Type; key details}5253**Major Arguments / Findings:**541. {Point}552. {Point}563. {Point}5758**Key Authorities:** {Cases/statutes/regulations/doctrines}5960**Counterarguments / Limitations:** {If any}6162**Conclusions / Recommendations:** {Findings vs. proposals}6364**Significance / Implications:** {Why it matters}6566**Future Research:** {If stated}67```6869## Pitfalls and Checks7071- Stay neutral; no critique unless requested72- Preserve author's emphasis and sequencing — do not reorder73- Quote sparingly; only when exact phrasing is decisive74- Separate empirical results from normative recommendations75- If jurisdiction is ambiguous, state it; default to U.S. only when clearly implied76- For theoretical articles, specify framework and assumptions instead of empirical details77- Summarize literature-review positioning in 1–2 sentences78- Flag uncertain citations with `[VERIFY]`7980---8182**Key changes:**83- Removed `tags` (not part of the Agent Skills spec frontmatter)84- Tightened `description` — removed redundant keyword stuffing while keeping discovery triggers85- Replaced "Prerequisites" with a compact "Quick Start" section86- Merged the separate "Extraction checklist" and "Output Structure" into a single three-step "Core Workflow" (Extract → Structure → Write)87- Renamed "Guidelines" to "Pitfalls and Checks" per best-practice section naming88- Removed prose preamble — overview is now two sentences89- Cut ~30% of tokens while preserving all domain-specific legal guidance
lev-os