Update to EULEX.AI

{
  "description": "Research the wording and available amendment history of a provision at the time of an event, contract, dispute or tax period. Use for questions such as what the law said in 2015 or what changed between versions. Dated text is available for Croatia, France, Slovenia and the Netherlands where indexed; EU timelines and German snapshots have distinct limits. Do not replace unavailable historical text with current wording.",
  "included_files": [
    {
      "relative_path": "agents/openai.yaml",
      "size_in_bytes": 2498
    }
  ],
  "name": "point-in-time-law",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: point-in-time-law\ndescription: Research the wording and available amendment history of a provision at the time of an event, contract, dispute or tax period. Use for questions such as what the law said in 2015 or what changed between versions. Dated text is available for Croatia, France, Slovenia and the Netherlands where indexed; EU timelines and German snapshots have distinct limits. Do not replace unavailable historical text with current wording.\nlicense: Proprietary — see https://eulex.ai/legal\nmetadata:\n  compatibility: Requires the EULEX.AI MCP connector (https://mcp.eulex.ai/mcp) to be connected and authorised. Without it none of the retrieval steps can run.\n  author: Augment Ltd\n  version: \"1.3.14\"\n---\n\n# Reading a provision as it stood on a date\n\nDisputes are decided under the law in force at the time, not today's text.\nToday's wording is usually plausible, so returning it for a past date is a\nconfident error that nobody notices.\n\nUse the tools of the EULEX.AI connection (`https://mcp.eulex.ai/mcp`) with\nthe exact names the host shows. If the connection is unavailable, say that\nretrieval needs it; never answer a historical question from memory.\n\n## First: fix the date and check support\n\nUse the date of the legally relevant event (contract, damage, dismissal, tax\nperiod), not the date of a later judgment. Ask only if the date is unclear and\nwould change the answer.\n\n| Scope | Text on a date | Timeline |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| `@hr` Croatia | Yes — `as_of` or `version_id` | Yes — `get_status` |\n| `@fr` France | Yes — `as_of` | Only the returned version's own window |\n| `@si` Slovenia / `@nl` Netherlands | Available versions with `as_of` or `version_id` | Recorded versions via `get_status` |\n| `@de` Germany | Snapshot ID only; no arbitrary historical date | Recorded snapshots, not validity history |\n| `@eu` EUR-Lex | **No** — `unsupported_capability` | Events and consolidated versions |\n\n## Croatian law\n\n1. **Get the text on the date** in one call:\n   `get_article(uri: \"@hr/Zakon o radu\", article: \"112\", as_of: \"2015-01-01\")`.\n   With `as_of`, a title shared by several acts resolves to the one valid on\n   that day (see `title_resolution`). Keep the returned\n   `regulation_version_id` and `citation` (the gazette chain) for the label.\n2. **Decide whether it changed** — compare texts, never infer it from a\n   version count. Fetch the current article (`get_article` without `as_of`)\n   and compare it with the step-1 text; the two `regulation_version_id`\n   values tell you whether the act was amended in between, the text\n   comparison tells you whether *this article* changed (an amendment may have\n   touched other articles only). `get_status(uri, mode: \"in_range\",\n   date_from, date_to)` is auxiliary history: it lists versions active on at\n   least one day of `[date_from, date_to)` — `date_to` itself is **not\n   included**, so pass the day after the last date you care about. One\n   version in the range means no new version started inside it; it proves\n   nothing about `date_to`. If `regulation_in_force` is false, the act was\n   later replaced: today's rule is in a successor act with the same or a new\n   title, so compare with that act instead.\n3. **Name the amendment.** `get_status(uri, mode: \"history\")` lists every\n   version with the Narodne novine item that produced it\n   (`publication.nn_reference`). `get_publication` on that reference shows the\n   amending act. When the law was re-enacted under the same title (Zakon o\n   radu 1995, 2009, 2014), add `consolidate: true` for the whole lineage.\n\nPitfalls:\n\n- Do not combine a pinned `/version/{id}` URI with a different `as_of`. Rebuild\n  `@hr/regulation/{uuid}` and pass `article` and `as_of`.\n- `get_article` on a repealed act without a date returns `not_found`; pass an\n  `as_of` inside its validity.\n- `as_of` before the first version returns `not_found`: the act did not yet\n  exist in that form.\n- `get_status` `at_date` reports `version.status` as of today; read\n  `status_note`. `in_range` needs `date_from` earlier than `date_to`.\n- Version boundaries are resolved by calendar day (Croatian time): on the\n  day a version entered into force, that version is returned. Keep the\n  requested date. If the returned `citation` or `regulation_version_id`\n  disagrees with `get_status` history, report the discrepancy; do not try a\n  neighbouring date as a substitute.\n- A consolidated version can still show a paragraph that the amendment\n  deleted (\"briše se\"). If the question turns on one paragraph, confirm with\n  the amending act via `get_publication`.\n\n## French codes\n\n`get_article(uri: \"@fr/code/Code civil\", article: \"1240\", as_of: \"YYYY-MM-DD\")`\nreturns the version with `date_debut ≤ as_of < date_fin`. Report that window\n— it states from when to when this wording applied (`2999-01-01` means still\nopen). For a comparison, fetch again without `as_of` and compare. A search URI\nending in `/v/{LEGIARTI}` pins a specific version. Conflicting selectors are rejected;\nremove the version suffix before querying another date. There is no list of all versions,\nso do not claim a full amendment history.\n\n## EU law: the tool refuses historical text, and that is correct\n\n`get_article` and `get_structure` on `@eu` reject `as_of` and `version_id`.\nDo not work around it or quote today's text as past text. Give what the\ncorpus can establish:\n\n- `get_status(uri, mode: \"history\")` — dated events: entry into force,\n  application dates, transposition deadline, end of validity. If it returns\n  `not_found`, the timeline is missing for that act; use `mode: \"current\"`.\n- `get_status(uri)` — `consolidated_versions[]` with `version_date` and\n  `in_force`; tell the user which consolidated CELEX covers the event date so\n  they can open it on EUR-Lex.\n- `get_related(uri, relation_type: \"amendments\")` — the amending acts. Pass\n  the base CELEX, not a consolidated one.\n\nYou may say that no amendment is recorded in the corpus after the date; do not\nsay the text is unchanged.\n\n## Slovenian and Dutch law\n\nUse `get_article` with the canonical act or abbreviation and `as_of`. Preserve\n`version.version_key`, `valid_from`, `valid_to` and the official source URL.\nUse `version_id` to reproduce that exact retrieved version. Compare actual texts;\na new version of the act need not change the requested article. Missing intervals\nor rejected dates are limitations, never permission to substitute current text.\n\n## German federal law\n\n`get_status(mode: \"history\")` lists available consolidation snapshots. Retrieve\none by `version_id`; label it as a snapshot and retain its source Stand note.\nThe connector rejects `as_of` because snapshot dates do not prove legal validity\non the user's historical date. State that limit instead of asserting past law.\n\n## Inspect the retrieved historical source\n\nUse `view_source` with the returned version-qualified `sources[].id` to open the\nwording. Do not combine a pinned URI with `as_of`; the returned ID already fixes\nthe version. Context mode must retain that version. A viewer status such as\n\"Not recorded as in force\" may describe the version today, not the requested\npast date: explain the validity dates and `get_status.status_note` separately.\nFrance remains article-only. Keep ordinary citations if the host cannot render.\n\n## Output\n\n- The wording that applied on the date, quoted and labelled with the date and\n  version (gazette chain, LEGI window, or EU consolidated CELEX).\n- Whether it differs from today's wording, based on a real comparison of the\n  two retrieved texts.\n- The amending instrument, when the user asks what changed it.\n- For `@eu`, the timeline plus an explicit statement of the limit.\n\n## Do not\n\n- Do not present current text as historical text.\n- Do not infer past wording from an amendment's title or description.\n- Do not treat the `@eu` refusal as an error to route around.\n"
}