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/skills/legal/automated-contract-summary
development
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
name: automated-contract-summary language: en description: Generates structured executive summaries of contracts using ML — captures key terms, party obligations, risk allocations, and compliance requirements in a standardized format. Optimized for high-volume review where speed and consistency matter. tags: - summarization - agreement - corporate --- # Automated Contract Summarization Produces standardized executive summaries of contracts using machine learning, capturing essential term
21SKILL.mdUpdated May 26, 2026
casemark/obligation-mapping
tools
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Extracts regulatory obligations from dense regulations across jurisdictions. Breaks down multi-level regulations into clear article-level obligations, classifies applicability to a business, and prioritizes by risk level. Use when translating regulations into actionable compliance requirements.
21SKILL.mdUpdated May 25, 2026
casemark/horizon-scanning
development
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Continuously monitors regulatory landscapes for changes relevant to a specific business. Ingests global regulatory updates, filters by relevance, summarizes impact, and produces an actionable change advisory. Use when tracking regulatory developments affecting a particular product or market.
21SKILL.mdUpdated May 25, 2026
casemark/gap-analysis
testing
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Compares an organization's existing compliance controls, policies, and procedures against extracted regulatory obligations to identify coverage gaps. Produces a remediation plan with prioritized actions. Use when assessing compliance maturity or preparing for regulatory audits.
21SKILL.mdUpdated May 25, 2026