1. WRITE section content
2. GENERATE: build/update the DOCX via the docx skill
3. VERIFY:   python3 verify-legal.py legal/{slug}/
4. If FAIL → FIX → go to 2
5. If PASS → move to next section

Phase 1: SCAFFOLD  →  Create project, metadata.json, empty DOCX with structure
                       Verify: document exists and has correct sections ✓

Phase 2: RESEARCH  →  Case law, statutes, regulations (if litigation/regulatory doc)
                       Verify: citations are formatted correctly ✓

Phase 3: WRITE     →  Per-section drafting in logical order
                       Verify: verify-legal.py after EACH section ✓

Phase 4: POLISH    →  Self-reflection pass, strict verification, final DOCX
                       Verify: verify-legal.py --strict with zero warnings ✓

legal/{document-slug}/
├── metadata.json           # Document type, parties, jurisdiction, etc.
├── document.docx           # The main document (generated via docx)
├── research/               # Case law, statutes, notes (optional)
│   ├── cases.json          # CourtListener search results
│   ├── regulations.json    # eCFR lookup results
│   └── notes.md            # Research notes
└── versions/               # Prior versions (optional)

{
  "type": "contract",
  "title": "Services Agreement",
  "jurisdiction": "State of Delaware",
  "governing_law": "Delaware",
  "date": "2025-01-15",
  "parties": [
    {"name": "Acme Corporation", "short_name": "Company", "role": "client"},
    {"name": "Jane Smith Consulting LLC", "short_name": "Contractor", "role": "contractor"}
  ],
  "word_limit": null,
  "page_limit": null
}

SLUG="document-slug-here"
mkdir -p "legal/$SLUG"/{research,versions}

python3 verify-legal.py legal/$SLUG/

SKILL_DIR="..."  # from glob

Save results to `research/cases.json`. Extract key holdings for use in the document.

**Note:** CourtListener requires a free API token for higher rate limits. Set `COURTLISTENER_API_TOKEN` env var. Without it, limited to 100 requests/day.

undefined

No API key required.

1. READ all previously written sections for context
2. WRITE the section following document-type conventions
3. REGENERATE the DOCX (update via python-docx)
4. VERIFY: python3 verify-legal.py legal/{slug}/
5. If errors → FIX → go to 3
6. SELF-REFLECT:
   - Is every legal assertion supported by authority? (litigation docs)
   - Are defined terms used consistently?
   - Any ambiguous language? ("reasonable" without standard, "timely" without deadline)
   - Cross-references point to correct sections?
   - No placeholder text remaining in this section?
7. REVISE if needed → regenerate → verify
8. Section DONE → next

"Agreement" means this Services Agreement, including all exhibits and schedules.

"Confidential Information" means any information disclosed by one party to the
other that is designated as confidential or that reasonably should be understood
to be confidential given the nature of the information and the circumstances of
disclosure.

"Deliverables" means the work product to be delivered by Contractor as described
in Exhibit A.

IN NO EVENT SHALL EITHER PARTY BE LIABLE TO THE OTHER PARTY FOR ANY
INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES,
REGARDLESS OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION OR THE THEORY OF LIABILITY, EVEN IF
SUCH PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

THE TOTAL AGGREGATE LIABILITY OF [PARTY] UNDER THIS AGREEMENT SHALL NOT
EXCEED THE TOTAL FEES PAID BY [OTHER PARTY] DURING THE TWELVE (12) MONTH
PERIOD PRECEDING THE CLAIM.

[ISSUE] The issue is whether [legal question under specific law/standard].

[RULE] Under [jurisdiction] law, [state the rule]. See [Authority]. The [court]
has held that [rule elaboration]. [Authority]. Courts consider [factors/elements]:
(1) [factor]; (2) [factor]; and (3) [factor]. [Authority].

[APPLICATION] Here, [apply each factor to the client's facts]. First, [fact]
satisfies [factor] because [reasoning]. See [analogous case]. Unlike in
[distinguishable case], where [different facts led to different outcome], here
[explain why our facts are more like the favorable case].

[CONCLUSION] Therefore, [conclusion on this issue]. A court would likely
[prediction].

Good:  "I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE
            GENUINE DISPUTES OF MATERIAL FACT EXIST."
Bad:   "I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT"

Good:  "A. Plaintiff's Deposition Testimony Creates a Triable Issue of Fact
            Regarding Defendant's Knowledge of the Defect."
Bad:   "A. Deposition Testimony"

12. On or about March 15, 2024, Plaintiff entered into a written agreement
    with Defendant for the purchase of the Property (the "Purchase Agreement").
    A true and correct copy of the Purchase Agreement is attached hereto as
    Exhibit A and incorporated by reference.

13. Pursuant to Section 4.1 of the Purchase Agreement, Defendant represented
    and warranted that the Property was free of all environmental contamination.

14. On or about June 1, 2024, Plaintiff discovered that the Property contained
    significant levels of lead contamination in the soil.

python3 "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/verify-legal.py" "legal/$SLUG/" --strict

undefined

undefined