About this skill

Problem

When engineering or operations teams ask questions such as "which clause supports a rule", "is this provision still in force", or "how do two regulations differ", raw keyword search can break up legal semantics, return noisy results, or present repealed rules as current.

How It Works

Intent parsing: recognizes regulation lookup, legal-basis queries, validity checks, and comparison requests.
Query structuring: extracts regulation names, conduct types, clause numbers, jurisdictions, and validity targets from natural language.
Semantic-first retrieval: preserves full context for legal scenarios, fact patterns, disputes, and document summaries instead of mechanically tokenizing.
CLI post-processing: uses deli-cli results to mark validity, locate clauses, summarize content, and recommend related regulations.
Structured output: presents results as clause detail, regulation list, comparison, or validity-check templates.

Scope and Caution

This skill performs retrieval, location, and presentation only; it does not replace legal advice, contract review, or litigation strategy. It should not invent missing fields, and results need to be interpreted with validity status, applicable parties, jurisdiction, and time scope.

Editor's note

Written for AI Agent Hub. This is separate from the publisher description above.

What problem it solves

You need to find a possibly relevant Chinese statute or regulation and see whether the text you were given is still the kind of source you should hand a lawyer. The skill is a retrieval prompt. The problem is search, not representation.

Who it is for

Someone who already knows which jurisdiction they mean, who will open the official text, and who uses the skill to collect candidate passages. A researcher preparing a packet for counsel fits. A person who wants "the answer" in chat does not.

Who should skip it

Skip it for any jurisdiction it does not cover. Skip it if you would file or send the paragraph without reading the source. Skip it for a client's unpublished facts. Practice on a public, already-gazetted example. The professional category is explicit that a card is not a license to practice. When not to install says the same.

First three steps

Pick a public instrument you can find again on an official site.
Ask the skill to quote the clause and give the retrieval handle, and to say nothing if it cannot.
Open the official page. If the quote matches, the skill is a search aid. If it invented a clause, remove it. Do not "try a harder question" after a fabricated quote.

Alternatives on this site

Business-ops skills check a bid's structure. They do not state the law. Content skills will write a confident essay. Neither replaces this tool, and this tool does not replace counsel. If the official site has a search box you already understand, use that and skip the skill.

Questions

It cited an article number. Is that enough? Only after you open it. Article numbers are easy to fabricate because they look precise.

Can this tell me if our contract is valid? No.

Screenshots

Use Cases

During product compliance review, locate the current legal basis for non-compete clauses.
While doing initial contract review, check whether a labor law citation is still valid.
When handling labor disputes, compare Civil Code and former contract law on breach liability.
Before drafting a compliance note, convert natural-language issues into semantic retrieval outputs.

Best For

Legal assistants who regularly check whether contract clauses cite currently valid regulations.
Compliance specialists who need to locate the legal basis for product review rules.
Engineers who need to confirm clause scope, version status, and applicability when implementing compliance logic.
Legal operations staff who need to organize differences between two regulations for comparison.