{"id":69023,"plugin_id":"plugin_asdk_app_6acf762aa4e08191a1c6d129894ae434","kind":"skill","collection_source":"plugin_package","comparison_source":null,"observed_at":"2026-10-28T18:06:46.648Z","digest":"f532f182d8f4fab343be94655c53e075e85dacd7f20648f8a0dab358cc74e6b1","against":null,"payload":{"description":"Check the legal claims in a document or text against the official Dutch and EU sources through LexAgent - a decision (besluit), objection (bezwaarschrift), contract, advice memo, letter or draft. Use when the user asks whether a text is legally correct, asks to verify or fact-check its legal statements or references, or asks \"klopt dit?\".","included_files":[],"name":"check-legal-claims","skill_md_contents":"---\nname: check-legal-claims\ndescription: Check the legal claims in a document or text against the official Dutch and EU sources through LexAgent - a decision (besluit), objection (bezwaarschrift), contract, advice memo, letter or draft. Use when the user asks whether a text is legally correct, asks to verify or fact-check its legal statements or references, or asks \"klopt dit?\".\n---\n\n# Checking legal claims with LexAgent\n\nGoal: for every legal claim in the text, a verdict that rests on the official source, so the user can\nsee at a glance what holds, what does not and what could not be checked.\n\n## 1. List the claims\n\nGo through the text and pick out each **legal claim**: a statement about what a rule says, requires or\nallows, a reference to an article, regulation or ruling, a deadline or competence derived from law.\nFacts about the case (names, dates, what someone did or plans) are not legal claims; skip them.\nQuote each claim exactly as it appears, one sentence or clause at a time.\n\n## 2. Verify each claim\n\nFor each claim, read the source that governs it with the LexAgent document tools, following the\n`dutch-legal-research` skill: the article itself for the right peildatum, then case law where the\nclaim depends on interpretation. Check the reference too: an article number that moved or a\nregulation that was repealed or replaced is a finding in itself.\n\nAlso check what a text must say but does not. For a decision (besluit) of a government body that is\nat least:\n\n- **Statement of reasons** (art. 3:46 and 3:47 Awb): the grounds and, where possible, the legal basis.\n- **Objection clause** (art. 3:45 Awb): that objection or appeal is possible, the period, and the body\n  to send it to. A wrong period is a claim to check; a missing body is an omission to report.\n\nReport an omission as its own row, quoting the passage it should have been part of.\n\n## 3. Give one verdict per claim\n\nUse exactly one of these statuses:\n\n| Status | Meaning |\n|---|---|\n| **Klopt** | The cited source supports the claim. |\n| **Onjuist** | The cited source contradicts it. |\n| **Twijfel** | Partly supported, depends on facts not in the text, or rests on a weaker source such as council information. |\n| **Niet gevonden** | You searched the sources that should cover it and none supports it. |\n| **Niet te controleren** | The governing source is not available through LexAgent (for example an omgevingsplan, or case law that is not in the open data). |\n\nKlopt, Onjuist and Twijfel always carry the citation the document tool returned. Give a one- or\ntwo-sentence explanation per claim in the language of the text, and for Onjuist the correct wording\nor reference.\n\n## 4. Report\n\nPresent a table (quote, status, explanation, source), followed by a short summary: the claims that\nneed attention first, then what could not be checked and why. Do not rewrite the user's document\nunless asked.\n"},"changes":[],"summary":"First saved snapshot. No earlier version is available for comparison.","summary_kind":"deterministic","summary_metadata":{}}