---
name: law-library-research
description: Research US caselaw, statutes, definitions, and court rules through the public LLM Law Library, including citation auditing and source-grounded legal analysis.
---

# Law Library Research

Use the public Law Library when a task requires US primary legal authority. This file works as a formal skill or as a document read in an ordinary chat window. The GET API and full route reference are at https://implausible.enterprises/projects/law-library/for-llms.txt.

## Evidence contract

- Frame jurisdiction, court level, relevant date, posture, and precise proposition before searching.
- Keep a ledger of every retrieved citation. Cite only authority retrieved in this session.
- Open the full opinion, statute, or rule before characterizing it. Snippets are leads.
- Mark each authority `directly_on_point`, `applies_general_rule`, `analogous`, or `background`.
- Lead with the answer and no more than three controlling authorities.
- Put plausible but unsupported claims in an explicit `unsupported_propositions` section.
- Search adverse authority and alternative readings before finishing.

## Search sequence

1. Retrieve governing statutes or rules when the issue is text-driven.
2. Search cases in `hybrid` mode for the doctrine and factual application.
3. Re-search exact citations, party names, or phrases in `bm25` mode.
4. Open full texts and record the language that actually supports each proposition.
5. Run a citation audit on every load-bearing authority.

## Citation audit

Use `/caselaw/verify?citation=...` to confirm that a reporter citation resolves, then load the returned opinion. Classify the claimed proposition as supported, narrower than claimed, analogous only, contradicted, or unverified. Automated treatment counts are research signals, not good-law conclusions; inspect later opinions before reporting that authority was limited or overruled.

## Output

Return: `summary_answer`; `controlling_authority` (1–3 entries with citation, relationship, and proposition); material supporting and adverse authority; `unsupported_propositions`; currency/corpus warnings; and practical follow-up checks.

Never say the library makes an answer “court-admissible,” guarantees current law, or eliminates hallucination. It retrieves real records; relevance, characterization, treatment, and currency still require judgment.