First-pass framework for reading, interpreting, and structuring statutory analysis of US federal, state, and local law. Produces draft analysis for attorney review — not legal advice.
Library skill — the default version is maintained in GitHub; edits you make live in your own clone.
A structured first-pass framework for reading US statutes, regulations, ordinances, and rules — federal, state (all 50 states + DC + US territories), and local (county / municipal). Claude organises the analysis; a named attorney owns every legal conclusion.
This skill does not handle non-US law (EU, UK, Canada, foreign jurisdictions, international treaties). If the user's matter touches foreign law, halt and route to counsel qualified in that jurisdiction.
Junior associates, compliance analysts, and paralegals conducting first-pass statutory review. All outputs require attorney review before any client-facing, regulatory, or transactional use. This skill is not for self-represented users seeking legal advice — the firewall between "structuring analysis" and "giving advice" exists because misreading statutory text has real consequences for real people, and a named attorney is the only person qualified to bear that risk.
Accretive Judgment. Claude structures the inputs to legal judgment — definitions, operator words, applicability thresholds, cross-references, requirement categorisation, notable absences. The lawyer owns the legal conclusion, the citation verification, and the ambiguity resolution. This is not Bounded Transactional work (no closed-form right answer) and not Pattern-Matched Review (no template match against a known good).
Use when the user asks for first-pass structuring of: - How to read and interpret a specific statute, regulation, or rule - Statutory interpretation methods and canons of construction - Legislative intent extraction - Requirements extraction from statutory text - Applicability / threshold analysis - Cross-jurisdictional compliance scoping
This skill does not perform: - Non-US law of any kind — EU regulations (GDPR, DSA, AI Act), UK statutes, Canadian / Australian / Singaporean / other foreign law, or international treaties. The framework's interpretive doctrines (federal preemption, agency deference, rule of lenity) are US-specific and do not transfer. - Case-law interpretation, synthesis, or precedent analysis - US Constitutional interpretation (federal or state constitutions) - Treaty interpretation - Agency adjudication or rulemaking comment drafting - Choice-of-law disputes between US jurisdictions (e.g., which state's law governs a multi-state transaction) - Drafting statutory, regulatory, or ordinance language - Lobbying or legislative-strategy analysis - Final legal opinions, client memos, briefs, or filings
If a request falls into any of the above, halt and route to a qualified attorney rather than attempting a first-pass — these areas have their own evidentiary, doctrinal, and process requirements that a statutory-text framework cannot satisfy. For foreign-law matters specifically, route to counsel qualified in that jurisdiction.
Before starting Step 1, confirm all of the following are present. Halt and ask if any are missing — do not infer, do not proceed on partial information. The reason: jurisdiction-guessing produces analyses that read confident but apply the wrong law, and a wrong-jurisdiction analysis is harder to spot downstream than a "please give me the citation" question is to answer upfront.
| Required Input | What it must contain |
|---|---|
| Statutory citation | Jurisdiction + section number (e.g., "Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100"; "42 U.S.C. § 1320d-2"; "Chicago Municipal Code § 4-4-005") |
| Full text or authoritative link | Consolidated/codified version, not a summary |
| Jurisdiction level | Federal, state (which state — all 50 + DC + territories), or local (which county / city / municipality, plus the parent state) — explicit, not inferred |
| Version / effective date | Which version of the statute is being analysed |
| Stated purpose | Compliance scoping, element extraction, exemption check, or other |
Halt-and-ask rule: If the user provides only a citation without text, only text without citation, or an ambiguous jurisdiction (e.g., "the privacy law" without naming the state), stop and request the missing element. Do not infer jurisdiction from context clues; do not proceed on partial citations.
Non-US flag: If the citation, text, or context indicates a non-US source (e.g., "Regulation (EU) 2016/679", "Data Protection Act 2018", "PIPEDA", a foreign court reporter), halt and decline — this skill covers US law only. Recommend counsel qualified in that jurisdiction.
Claude produces a draft analysis, never a final conclusion. Every output must:
DRAFT — Attorney Review Required | Reviewing Attorney: <name> | Privilege Status: <status><reviewing attorney: ___> placeholder the user must fill)Conclusory verbs without a Confidence Band create the appearance of a final legal conclusion the lawyer never signed off on — tag every conclusion with a band, or downgrade it to an open question for the attorney. Phrases like "Mandatory obligation," "Enforcement by Agency X," or "This applies to your client" stated flatly are exactly the failure mode this section exists to prevent.
Every material finding in the output is tagged High / Medium / Low:
| Band | When |
|---|---|
| High | Text unambiguous; definitions self-contained; no contested agency interpretation; no relevant cross-references unresolved |
| Medium | Cross-references resolved but require verification; minor definitional gaps; agency guidance consistent with text |
| Low | Undefined terms; contested provision; agency interpretation diverges from text; split case law in implementing regs; effective date uncertain |
Flat-confidence outputs are not acceptable for ambiguous provisions. When in doubt between bands, downgrade — the downside of an under-confident finding (lawyer spends extra minutes verifying) is much smaller than the downside of an over-confident one (lawyer trusts a finding that was actually shaky).
Halt the analysis and surface to the named attorney when any of the following occur. Escalation is mandatory; it overrides the instinct to complete the analysis, because finishing-anyway is how shaky readings become "the analysis said so."
When escalating, state which trigger fired and what is needed from the attorney.
| Mode | Why it happens | Guard |
|---|---|---|
| Advice vs. support drift | A confident, structured draft reads like advice; readers stop noticing the disclaimer | Draft label + Delegation Threshold section in every output |
| Privilege leakage | Compliance analysis gets pasted into emails or shared documents without privilege framing, exposing client communications to discovery | If analysis touches a client matter, mark "Attorney Work Product — Privileged & Confidential" and confirm distribution scope before sharing |
| Accountability gap | Output is consumed as a final conclusion because no one is named as owner | Named-attorney requirement; conclusory verbs paired with Confidence Bands |
| Cite-staleness | Statutes amend; an analysis dated six months ago may apply repealed text | Version-date in Input Requirements; Confidence Band caveat naming the version analysed |
| Jurisdiction mismatch (US-internal) | Framework patterns from one state get misapplied to another; federal-law assumptions get carried into state analysis; home-rule assumptions made in a Dillon's Rule state | Jurisdiction level (federal / state / local) confirmed in Input Requirements; one declared jurisdiction per analysis; preemption flagged for attorney |
| Out-of-scope foreign law | User pastes EU / UK / foreign text without saying so; framework's US-specific canons (preemption, agency deference, rule of lenity) get applied to law where they don't exist | Non-US flag in Input Requirements; halt and decline rather than attempt |
| Type | Created By | Characteristics |
|---|---|---|
| Statute | Legislature | Formal enactment; commands, prohibits, or declares policy; provides framework |
| Regulation | Government agency | Implements statutes; has force of law; usually more operationally detailed |
| Rule | Agency or court | Administrative rule (=regulation) or procedural requirement |
Key insight: Statutes give agencies authority to create regulations. Always read both the statute and implementing regulations — regulations often contain the operational details the statute left to agency discretion.
The statute as passed is often not the statute as implemented — a statute with a future effective date may be amended before taking effect.
The same statutory language can mean different things depending on who enforces it.
Browse the index or table of contents before diving into a specific section. Understanding how the issue fits in the larger whole prevents misreading a provision as freestanding when it depends on a definition or applicability section elsewhere.
For unfamiliar statutes or codes, see references/statutory_structure.md — read it when first browsing a statute you have not seen before.
Every word has meaning. Find the definitions section first and reference it constantly.
Build a reference sheet of key definitions before analysing substantive provisions.
Statutes are dense. Every word and punctuation mark has meaning. Read each sentence multiple times; parse complex sentences into their component parts; do not skim. Statutory language rewards close attention and punishes skimming with confident misreads.
These words have consistent legal functions across statutes:
| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Shall | Mandatory — REQUIRED |
| May | Permissive — ALLOWED |
| And | Conjunctive — ALL elements must be satisfied |
| Or | Disjunctive — ANY ONE element is sufficient |
| Unless / Except | Signals an exception to the general rule |
| Subject to | Limited by another section |
| Notwithstanding | Applies DESPITE other sections |
| If...then / Upon / Provided that | A precondition must be satisfied |
| Means | Exhaustive definition follows |
| Includes | Examples follow (may not be exhaustive) |
Misreading "and" as "or" or "shall" as "may" fundamentally changes a provision's meaning — these are the top source of Low-confidence findings and the cheapest mistakes to avoid by reading slowly.
When you encounter a reference to another statute or section, stop and read it. Cross-references may expand, limit, or modify the provision being analysed. Build a map of how sections relate.
When language is ambiguous, use the established interpretive tools below. Ambiguity itself is an escalation signal — flag for the attorney even while applying the tools.
Textual canons (read the text on its own terms): - General-Terms Canon — general terms get full scope absent limitation - Negative-Implication (Expressio Unius) — listing one thing implies excluding others - Whole-Act Rule — construe text as a coherent whole - Consistent Usage — same word, same meaning - Meaningful Variation — different terms imply different meanings - Surplusage — every word should have meaning - Noscitur a Sociis — words inform each other when grouped - Ejusdem Generis — general terms following specific ones are limited to the same class
Purpose canons (read the text in light of its goal): - Presumption Against Ineffectiveness, Avoiding Absurdity, Remedial Statutes, Rule of Lenity
For full canon definitions with case examples, read references/canons_of_construction.md when interpreting ambiguous statutory language or resolving definitional gaps.
Preamble/purpose clauses, findings sections, and structural context often state legislative intent more cleanly than the operative provisions do.
| Type | Examples | Implementation Team |
|---|---|---|
| Disclosure | Privacy notices, warning labels, terms | Legal/policy |
| Operational | Response deadlines, internal processes | Compliance |
| Technical | System requirements, security standards | Engineering |
| UI/Design | Link placement, font size, button design | Product/design |
Separating these matters: a "privacy policy requirements" checklist should not include operational deadlines that never appear in the policy itself. Separate WHAT must be disclosed from HOW the business must operate.
Determine WHO must comply before extracting requirements.
| Threshold Type | Examples |
|---|---|
| Revenue | Annual gross revenue > $X million |
| Volume | Process data of > X consumers/transactions |
| Revenue from Activity | Derive X% of revenue from regulated activity |
| Entity Type | Applies to developers / controllers / operators |
Conjunctive vs. disjunctive: "$25M revenue AND 100K consumers" is far more limited than "$25M revenue OR 100K consumers." This single word change can multiply or divide the regulated population by an order of magnitude.
The skill handles three US jurisdiction levels and the interactions between them. Each analysis stays within one declared jurisdiction at a time — multi-state or federal/state comparison is a separate pass, done one jurisdiction at a time, then assembled.
| Level | Examples | Typical citation form |
|---|---|---|
| Federal | U.S. Code, Code of Federal Regulations | 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-2, 45 C.F.R. § 164.502 |
| State | State codes, state administrative codes (all 50 + DC + territories) | Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-578, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 899-bb |
| Local | County and municipal codes, ordinances | N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 20-870, Chicago Municipal Code § 4-4-005 |
Federal law preempts conflicting state and local law in some areas (express preemption, field preemption, conflict preemption). State law preempts conflicting local law where the state legislature has occupied a field or expressly limited home-rule authority. Preemption analysis is always an escalation trigger — flag for the attorney; do not declare preemption status as a finding.
When comparing similar laws across states (e.g., state privacy laws, breach-notification statutes, consumer protection acts):
In home-rule states, municipalities may regulate areas the state has not preempted. In Dillon's Rule states, municipal authority is narrower. If a local ordinance conflicts with state law, the local provision may be void — flag for attorney rather than declaring.
For detailed lessons from multi-statute analysis (drawn from US state privacy-law work), see references/practical_lessons.md — read when scoping multi-state or federal-vs-state work, or when applicability thresholds look unusual.
| Factor | Questions |
|---|---|
| Authority | AG only? Private parties? Agency? |
| Penalties | Civil / criminal / administrative? Amount? |
| Cure period | Opportunity to fix before penalties? |
| Private right of action | Can individuals sue? |
| Enforcement history | Is the agency actively enforcing? |
Two requirements with identical language can have vastly different practical priority depending on enforcement dynamics — note this in the output, do not treat all statutory text as equally load-bearing.
Compare against typical provisions to identify notable absences. The absence of a remedy or protection is often as significant as what is included.
If an interpretation creates an internal contradiction or an absurd result, it is probably wrong — statutes are written to be coherent. When in doubt, prefer the reading that furthers the statute's stated purpose. (When the absurdity is on the statute's side, not the interpretation's, that is an escalation trigger.)
Every analysis produced by this skill follows this structure. Conclusory verbs without a Confidence Band are not permitted.
DRAFT — Attorney Review Required
Reviewing Attorney: <name>
Privilege Status: <e.g., "Attorney Work Product — Privileged & Confidential" OR "Not privileged">
Statute: <citation> | Version/Effective Date: <date>
Jurisdiction Level: Federal | State (<which>) | Local (<which, parent state>)
Purpose of Analysis: <stated purpose>
1. Applicability
- Threshold(s) identified: <list> [Confidence: High/Medium/Low]
- Conjunctive/Disjunctive: <which>
- Exemptions potentially in play: <list> [Confidence: ...]
- Federal preemption status: <flagged for attorney — do not state here>
- Inter-state / federal-state conflict noted: <yes/no — if yes, list for attorney>
2. Definitions Used
- <Term>: <statutory definition> [exhaustive / illustrative]
3. Operative Provisions (Draft Reading)
- <Provision>: <plain reading> [Confidence: ...]
Operator words: shall/may/and/or as parsed
Cross-references resolved: <list>
Cross-references unresolved: <list> ← escalation candidate
4. Requirements by Type
- Disclosure: <items>
- Operational: <items>
- Technical: <items>
- UI/Design: <items>
5. Enforcement Posture (Descriptive, Not Predictive)
- Authority: <agency / private right>
- Penalty structure: <civil/criminal/admin, amount>
- Cure period: <yes/no, length> [Confidence: ...]
6. Notable Absences
- <items>
7. Open Questions for Attorney
- <Every Low-confidence finding listed here>
- <Every escalation trigger that fired, with which trigger>
- <Citation verification items>
- <Currency-of-text verification>
This document is a draft analytical framework, not legal advice.
No legal conclusion is final until the named attorney signs off.
Input prompt (user):
"Can you walk me through Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.105 — the CCPA deletion right? We're scoping a CCPA compliance project. Here's the consolidated text: [paste]. Effective date 2023 amendments. Purpose: element extraction for our policy team."
Output (excerpt — illustrative, not authoritative):
DRAFT — Attorney Review Required
Reviewing Attorney: <placeholder — to be filled by user>
Privilege Status: <to confirm — likely Attorney Work Product if client matter>
Statute: Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.105 | Version: 2023 amendments
Jurisdiction Level: State (California)
Purpose of Analysis: Element extraction for policy team
1. Applicability
- Right runs to "consumers" (defined § 1798.140); duty runs to "businesses"
meeting § 1798.140(d) thresholds [Confidence: High]
- Conjunctive/Disjunctive: applicability uses OR thresholds in § 1798.140(d) [Confidence: High]
3. Operative Provisions (Draft Reading)
- § 1798.105(a): consumer "shall have the right to request that a business delete
any personal information about the consumer which the business has collected
from the consumer." [Confidence: High]
Operator words: "shall have the right" (mandatory right); "from the consumer"
(limits scope to first-party data — see § 1798.105(d) exceptions)
- § 1798.105(d): nine enumerated exceptions to the deletion obligation.
[Confidence: Medium — "necessary to" language in (d)(1)–(d)(9) is operationally
ambiguous and has divergent agency guidance]
7. Open Questions for Attorney
- Verify 2023 amendment version against current CPPA-published text
- Confirm scope of "collected from the consumer" vs. inferred/derived data —
contested area, regulation interpretation diverges from some practitioner views
(Escalation trigger #4: term defined in part by case law / agency practice)
The example shows the structural pattern: Confidence Bands on every finding, the first-party-data scope limitation flagged as Medium because the regulations have created ambiguity around it, and a concrete escalation trigger written into the Open Questions block.
Before producing output, confirm:
The references/ directory holds depth content. See references/index.md for the full guide. Quick map:
canons_of_construction.md — Read when interpreting ambiguous textpractical_lessons.md — Read when scoping multi-statute or multi-jurisdiction workstatutory_structure.md — Read when first browsing an unfamiliar statute or codeSee CHANGELOG.md next to this file for version history.