casemark/amicus-brief
skills/legal/amicus-brief/SKILL.md
Drafts and analyzes U.S. appellate amicus curiae briefs for non-parties with Rule 29/Rule 37 compliance, unique perspective development, and Bluebook-ready citations. Use when asked to draft or review an amicus brief, friend-of-the-court brief, non-party brief, or anything involving FRAP 29, Supreme Court Rule 37, or appellate amicus practice.
$ install --global
skillsauthnpx skillsauth add casemark/skills amicus-briefInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
Security Scan Results
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
3
Scanners Passed
9
Scanners in report
Clean
TrivyContainer and dependency vulnerability scanner
95%
Clean
SemgrepStatic code analysis for vulnerabilities
95%
Clean
mcp-scan (Snyk)Model Context Protocol security validation
95%
Skipped
Snyk (dep)Open source security scanning
50%
Skipped
Socket.devSupply chain security analysis
50%
Skipped
VirusTotalMulti-engine malware detection
50%
Skipped
CrowdStrikeAdvanced threat intelligence
50%
Skipped
OSV-ScannerOpen Source Vulnerability database check
50%
Skipped
OWASP Dep-Check
50%
Last scanned: May 25, 2026, 3:27 AM31.1s1 file scanned
SKILL.md
- name:
- amicus-brief
- language:
- en
- description:
- Drafts and analyzes U.S. appellate amicus curiae briefs for non-parties with Rule 29/Rule 37 compliance, unique perspective development, and Bluebook-ready citations. Use when asked to draft or review an amicus brief, friend-of-the-court brief, non-party brief, or anything involving FRAP 29, Supreme Court Rule 37, or appellate amicus practice.
Amicus Brief
Draft or evaluate U.S. appellate amicus briefs that add a distinct, rule-compliant perspective.
Prerequisites
Gather before starting:
- Case posture, issues presented, and parties' arguments or briefs
- Amicus identity, constituency, and concrete stake in outcome
- Applicable rules (FRAP 29, state equivalent, or SCOTUS Rule 37) and local formatting requirements
- Consent status or plan for motion for leave; filing deadline
- Legal authorities and any empirical or policy materials to cite
Quick Start
Select mode:
| Mode | Trigger | Output | |---|---|---| | Drafting | Creating a new brief | Full brief with all required sections | | Analysis | Reviewing an existing brief | Structured critique with compliance table |
Drafting Workflow
- [ ] Confirm jurisdiction and rule set (federal, state, SCOTUS)
- [ ] Verify consent or prepare motion for leave
- [ ] Identify unique contribution — do not duplicate party arguments
- [ ] Build authority map: controlling precedent, persuasive precedent, statutes, secondary sources
- [ ] Integrate expertise or policy evidence with clear sourcing
- [ ] Draft sections in required order; verify word/page limits
- [ ] Add disclosure statements, certificates, and signatures
- [ ] Run compliance pass: Bluebook, formatting, service, ECF rules
Required Sections (adapt to court rules)
- Table of Contents
- Table of Authorities
- Statement of Interest
- Summary of Argument
- Argument (headed sections)
- Conclusion
- Certificates and disclosures
Argument Structure
| Section | Purpose | |---|---| | Interest | Establish legitimacy and why amicus perspective matters | | Summary | One page max — unique thesis and outcome requested | | Argument | 2–4 points, each tied to controlling law and practical impact | | Conclusion | Clear request for disposition or rule adoption |
Template
[Cover / Caption]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF INTEREST
[Amicus constituency, expertise, direct stake.]
CONSENT / LEAVE STATUS
[Consent or motion for leave.]
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
[Thesis and outcome sought.]
ARGUMENT
I. [Legal principle + unique perspective]
II. [Policy/technical evidence tied to law]
III. [Practical consequences or administrability]
CONCLUSION
[Requested disposition.]
DISCLOSURE OF AUTHORSHIP AND FUNDING
[FRAP 29(a)(4)(E) / SCOTUS Rule 37.6.]
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
[If required.]
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
[Word count method and total.]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
[Method, date, recipients.]
Analysis Workflow
- [ ] Identify distinct contribution; check for duplication of party arguments
- [ ] Assess credibility and fit of amicus interest
- [ ] Evaluate authority strength and citation accuracy
- [ ] Flag new issues not raised by parties
- [ ] Check rule compliance and formatting
- [ ] Summarize core arguments and policy impacts
Rule Compliance Checks
Verify for the specific court:
| Requirement | Confirm | |---|---| | Consent or leave | Parties' consent filed or motion for leave prepared | | Timing | Filing deadline — often 7 days after supported party's principal brief [VERIFY] | | Length | Word/page limits for amicus briefs [VERIFY] | | Disclosure | Authorship and funding (FRAP 29(a)(4)(E); SCOTUS Rule 37.6) | | Corporate disclosure | Entity disclosure if required (FRAP 26.1 or local equivalent) | | Service | Proper service on all parties with proof | | Format | Font, spacing, margins, cover color, ECF requirements |
Pitfalls
- Duplicating party briefs — add distinct law, data, or consequences only
- Introducing new issues — frame extra-record materials as legislative facts or policy context
- Citation errors — use Bluebook format; verify every authority
- Advocacy excess — keep tone neutral, precise, judicially useful
- Ignoring local rules — jurisdictional rules override FRAP/SCOTUS defaults
- Confidential information — redact or omit anything not in the public record
Related Skills
casemark/medical-records-gap-analysis
tools
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Audits the complete in-scope medical-record universe in a litigation matter and produces an attorney-facing, Bates-cited analysis of treatment gaps, missing records or providers, baseline coverage, material billing or production mismatches, and complaint evolution. Use when asked to find missing medical records, analyze treatment gaps or first-care timing, identify absent providers, assess whether a production is complete, or prepare a records-request target list. Use medical-record-chronology instead when the primary request is a chronological clinical narrative.
40SKILL.mdUpdated Sep 3, 2026
casemark/private-placement-memo
development
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Drafts a legally compliant Private Placement Memorandum for Regulation D offerings (Rule 506(b)/506(c)), covering full disclosure framework including risk factors, capitalization, securities terms, use of proceeds, and investor qualification requirements. Enforces SEC anti-fraud compliance under Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5, blue sky law considerations, and accredited investor verification under Rule 501. Use this skill when drafting PPMs, offering memorandums, Reg D disclosure documents, or private offering circulars for issuers raising capital from sophisticated investors. Also trigger when the user mentions private placement disclosure, offering memorandum, Reg D fundraising, or accredited investor verification. Even if the user just says "PPM" or "draft our offering memo," use this skill.
40SKILL.mdUpdated Apr 17, 2026
casemark/privacy-law-updates
data-ai
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Generates structured privacy and data protection law briefings across US, EU, UK, and other jurisdictions. Organizes by jurisdiction with compliance deadlines, enforcement actions, and legislative changes. Use when preparing privacy law briefings, compliance updates, regulatory change summaries, or data protection landscape reviews.
40SKILL.mdUpdated Apr 17, 2026
casemark/prior-art-summary
testing
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Generates structured summaries of prior art references for patent prosecution, validity analysis, and freedom-to-operate assessments. Maps disclosures to claim elements with precise citations. Use when summarizing prior art, analyzing patent landscapes, mapping references to claims, or preparing office action responses.
40SKILL.mdUpdated Apr 17, 2026