casemark/legal-article-summary

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