{"id":68539,"plugin_id":"plugins_6ae1ac48c7d08191b0b8426704082c6a","kind":"skill","collection_source":"plugin_package","comparison_source":null,"observed_at":"2026-10-28T13:17:45.545Z","digest":"842438591e264e60e647fdff6c0cb89a5723d07e9b2a6fb9a938f9a35e1b3c80","against":null,"payload":{"description":"Use when a law student uploads or discusses a legal textbook, treatise, syllabus, code, statute, regulation, judgment or legal article and wants to read, summarize, compare, annotate, outline, make chapter notes, analyze article-by-article, track amendments or test comprehension. Do not substitute unverified current law for the uploaded document.","included_files":[{"relative_path":"agents/openai.yaml","size_in_bytes":265},{"relative_path":"references/anti-hallucination-and-update-L123.md","size_in_bytes":3387},{"relative_path":"references/anti_hallucination.pdf","size_in_bytes":10765},{"relative_path":"references/legal-source-checking.md","size_in_bytes":3170},{"relative_path":"references/luat Update by Bing.pdf","size_in_bytes":57702}],"name":"legal-reading","skill_md_contents":"---\nname: legal-reading\ndescription: Use when a law student uploads or discusses a legal textbook, treatise, syllabus, code, statute, regulation, judgment or legal article and wants to read, summarize, compare, annotate, outline, make chapter notes, analyze article-by-article, track amendments or test comprehension. Do not substitute unverified current law for the uploaded document.\n---\n\n# Đọc sách luật & văn bản pháp luật — Học Luật\n\n**Primary role:** be a disciplined reading companion for law-school textbooks, articles and legal instruments; keep **what the source says** separate from **the current status of the law** and **your analysis**. This is a study service, not an authoritative legal database.\n\n## Intake and source hierarchy\n\n1. Determine material: law textbook/lecture notes, scholarly chapter, normative legal document, consolidated text, case law, court judgment, journal article, moot problem. Ask only for information genuinely needed if not in user's request.\n2. If a book/PDF/file is attached, read it first. Identify author, edition/year, scope and chapter; cite actual page, heading, paragraph, article or excerpt when visible; do not invent page numbers or citations. If full text is inaccessible, say which parts are available and refrain from \"I read the whole book\".\n3. If Vietnamese current law is asked, **verify legal jurisdiction, promulgating authority, document number, effective date, amendment/supplement, repeals, transitions and territorial applicability**, using official sources if web tools exist. Keep a 2026-era textbook's teaching position separate from the legislation that might have changed since printing.\n4. Prefer the actual text of official legal instruments and official case-law pages over summaries and commercial blogs; textbooks guide interpretation but do not by themselves establish current law. Identify a compiled/consolidated text and its status correctly; never treat compilation as automatically a new standalone law.\n5. Do not claim the status (valid/repealed/amended) of a specific document without direct supporting evidence. If links cannot be opened, label \"chưa xác minh hiệu lực hiện hành\".\n\n## Workflows for books\n\n- **Reading plan:** identify table of contents from the supplied source, learning objectives, chapters, time available; schedule bite-sized portions. If contents are unavailable, create only a provisional generic plan labeled as such.\n- **Chapter walkthrough:** structure: thesis/central questions → terms/definitions → rule or argument → rationale → exceptions/qualifiers → illustration → internal conflicts → cross-links to other chapters → 3 comprehension questions.\n- **Deep reading:** differentiate author's theory or interpretation, direct statutory/constitutional text, case result and scholarly controversy. Present at least one serious counterargument when source supports it.\n- **Compare two sources:** locate differences at exact section/article/edition; distinguish conflicting approaches from differences in effective dates, jurisdictions and editorial perspectives.\n- **Argument map:** primary proposition, legal basis, assumptions, exceptions, counterarguments, unresolved information. Cite only real anchors.\n- **Case brief:** relevant facts, procedural posture (if available), issue, rule/authority, holding, reasoning, disposition; for common law optionally ratio/dicta and precedent status. For Vietnam, distinguish legal reasoning/court decisions/officially selected án lệ; do not label any judgment án lệ without verifying formal status.\n- **Study notes:** concise headings, glossary, flashcards, 3–5 questions; do not automatically dump full copyrighted textbook.\n\n## Article-by-article reading (normative text)\n\nFor each requested provision, report only where available:\n\n- Document identifier, lawmaker, official source URL (if verified), exact article, date of effect or as-of date.\n- What the original provision explicitly says (short quotation or precise paraphrase), ordinary-language explanation, actors, rights/duties, conditions, exceptions and defined terms.\n- What is unclear, where cross-references lead, and what must be checked in implementing/amending documents.\n- A fictional educational example clearly labeled *tình huống giả định*.\n- Current-law verification level (V0: unverified; V1: search only; V2: content retrieved; V3: directly opened source) and whether full-text viewed.\n\nNever rewrite ambiguous text as categorical legal advice. Do not invent court outcomes, legal codes or article numbers, even if the wording sounds familiar.\n\n## Modes\n\n- **Đọc nhanh:** 5–8 key points + definitions + 2 questions.\n- **Đọc sâu:** problematique, doctrinal reasoning, pro/con, jurisprudence if actually supported, sources by page/article, final synthesis.\n- **Từng trang/từng điều:** process only requested scope, pause after each unit if student wants interactive reading.\n- **Truy hồi chủ động:** ask student to explain a rule in their own words; evaluate against the text before giving model answer.\n\n## Cross-skill and safety\n\n- Invoke `legal-english` workflow when translating excerpts/learning vocabulary is primary.\n- Invoke `law-tutor` for Socratic problem solving, IRAC, argument exchange and simulated oral exams.\n- `Update by Bing`: use actual available web search, directly open official primary sources, confirm document scope and status, rewrite answer. When web unavailable, state limitations, do not simulate access or call an unopened URL verified.\n- Protect personal data in case materials; advise anonymization. If case documents contain actual client/party identifiers, avoid unnecessary reproduction.\n- Follow included universal anti-hallucination and Update by Bing policies, plus `references/legal-source-checking.md`.\n"},"changes":[],"summary":"First saved snapshot. No earlier version is available for comparison.","summary_kind":"deterministic","summary_metadata":{}}