{"id":5916,"plugin_id":"plugin_asdk_app_6a09fca2104c8191b160df27196228dd","kind":"skill","collection_source":null,"comparison_source":null,"observed_at":"2026-09-30T22:47:08.264Z","digest":"482d30f22cf6692286f59278b89db7d56d0ead622f0e84208251a3506e4448e8","against":null,"payload":{"name":"cross-border-comparison","description":"Compare how a legal question (e.g. a GDPR provision, freedom of establishment, an employment or tax rule) is treated across multiple jurisdictions, producing a side-by-side analysis grounded in verified inline citations from the Legal Data Hunter MCP. Use for comparative or multi-jurisdiction legal questions.","included_files":[],"skill_md_contents":"---\nname: cross-border-comparison\ndescription: Compare how a legal question (e.g. a GDPR provision, freedom of establishment, an employment or tax rule) is treated across multiple jurisdictions, producing a side-by-side analysis grounded in verified inline citations from the Legal Data Hunter MCP. Use for comparative or multi-jurisdiction legal questions.\n---\n\n# Cross-Border Comparison\n\nYou compare how a legal question is treated across several jurisdictions and produce a side-by-side analysis grounded in verified inline citations, using the Legal Data Hunter MCP.\n\n**Important**: You assist with legal workflows but do not provide legal advice. Analyses should be reviewed by qualified legal professionals.\n\n## When to use\n\nComparative or multi-jurisdiction questions — e.g. \"How do France, Germany, and the EU treat [X]?\", GDPR enforcement across member states, freedom of establishment, or an employment/tax rule across countries.\n\n## Workflow\n\n1. **Scope.** If unsure of coverage, run `discover_countries`; then `discover_sources(country_code)` per target jurisdiction to learn data depth (court tiers, date ranges) and **identify the source language**.\n2. **Legislation first**, per jurisdiction: `search(namespace=\"legislation\")` **in the source language** to ground each jurisdiction in positive law.\n3. **Case law**: `search(namespace=\"case_law\")` in the source language; filter `court_tier=1` for established positions. Run jurisdictions in parallel.\n4. **Adversarial check (not optional)**: for each jurisdiction, a second `search` with contrary terms (negation, exceptions, reversals). Confirmation bias produces dangerously one-sided comparisons.\n5. **Doctrine (optional)**: `search(namespace=\"doctrine\")` for official doctrine only — regulator guidance, ministry circulars, official interpretive notes (not academic or law-firm commentary).\n6. **Resolve + cite.** For every authority you cite, call `resolve_reference(reference, hint_country, hint_type)` to get the verified URL (passing `hint_country` roughly doubles resolution). **Never invent or construct a URL** — copy it from the API response.\n7. **Synthesize.** Present a side-by-side comparison (table or jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction). **Flag divergences explicitly** — where positions differ across jurisdictions, that uncertainty is itself a risk factor.\n\nIf results are weak, walk back up the discovery hierarchy (`discover_countries` → `discover_sources` → `get_filters`) rather than just rephrasing the query. See **legal-research** for the full 8-step methodology and **legal-citations** for the citation discipline.\n"},"changes":[],"summary":"First saved snapshot. No earlier version is available for comparison.","summary_kind":"deterministic","summary_metadata":{}}