Legal Hallucination Verifier

Problem

In formal legal writing, the risk is often not style but citation: an invalid regulation, a modified clause, or a fabricated case number can turn an otherwise clear opinion into a compliance failure.

How It Works

This skill is for explicit citation-checking tasks, such as “verify legal citation,” “fact-check legal,” or drafting formal opinions, pleadings, and compliance reviews that cite statutes, clauses, or case numbers. It extracts plain text and calls hall_detect using X-API-Key authentication, submitting the text as text and preserving response.json with HTTP_STATUS.

It turns regulations[], cases[], and highlighted_text into an auditable review table. Regulations are checked against validity_status, semantic_compare.结论, and think_tank_content; cases are checked for court, date, facts, and key judgment points. Unverifiable case numbers are marked as “not found” or highly suspicious. The output uses fixed verdicts: accurate, validity risk, semantic mismatch, validity risk + semantic mismatch, not found.

Boundaries

Use it when formal sources matter, not for casual legal concept explanations or discussions without citations. If the API key is missing, authentication fails, or the response is unparsable, report the failure instead of inventing statutory text.