executing-plans
executing-plans
Use when executing an implementation plan in the current session as the implementer yourself — your human partner chose inline execution, or no subagent tool is available
amicus-curiae-briefDrafts filing-ready U.S. amicus curiae briefs with rule-anchored compliance, additive thesis selection, record-safe fact handling, and verified authority control. Trigger when asked to draft an amicus or friend-of-the-court brief, prepare FRAP 29/32 or Supreme Court Rule 37 amicus filings, draft consent/leave or disclosure language, or handle amicus procedu…
Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs
name: amicus-curiae-brief language: en description: > Drafts filing-ready U.S. amicus curiae briefs with rule-anchored compliance, additive thesis selection, record-safe fact handling, and verified authority control. Trigger when asked to draft an amicus or friend-of-the-court brief, prepare FRAP 29/32 or Supreme Court Rule 37 amicus filings, draft consent/leave or disclosure language, or handle amicus procedural requirements at any stage. tags:
Produces a procedurally compliant, substantively additive amicus brief. The amicus must deliver a perspective the parties cannot — restating party arguments risks striking, sanctions, or credibility loss.
Collect before drafting (skip only if user says "use defaults"):
Defaults if unspecified: federal circuit FRAP 29; standard amicus word limits; hybrid expertise/systemic-consequences thesis.
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Rule Set | FRAP 29/32, Supreme Court Rule 37, or state rule |
| Deadline | Date/time and trigger brief |
| Word/Page Limit | Rule section and numeric limit |
| Required Sections | Interest, disclosures, summary, argument, conclusion |
| Certificates | Compliance, service, corporate disclosure if required |
| Filing Format | ECF/PDF, paper copies, cover color [VERIFY] |
| Local Deviations | Circuit/state additions |
| Signature | Admitted counsel; Supreme Court Bar if applicable |
Extract party argument chain; identify the gap. Choose one primary thesis:
State thesis in one sentence for the Summary of Argument.
| Fact Type | Use | Support Required |
|---|---|---|
| Adjudicative | Only as in record | Record cite from briefs/record |
| Legislative | Context only | Primary sources, stable cites |
| Predictive | Cautious language | Empirical or governmental sources |
Structure:
Use bracketed placeholders ([VERIFY], [X words], [date]) for any unconfirmed detail.
Certificate of Compliance
Rule: [FRAP 32(g)(1) / controlling forum rule]
Word count: [X words]
Required rule text: [PASTE VERBATIM TEXT REQUIRED BY CONTROLLING RULE]
Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
Signature: [Name /s/]
Certificate of Service
Rule: [FRAP 25(d) / FRAP 25(c) / controlling forum rule]
Service method: [ECF / email / mail / personal service]
Service date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
Served on: [Names or category of recipients as required]
Required rule text: [PASTE VERBATIM TEXT REQUIRED BY CONTROLLING RULE]
Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
Signature: [Name /s/]
Prefix every output with:
Ask after delivering initial draft:
Verify before finalizing:
[VERIFY][VERIFY] if unconfirmed[VERIFY][VERIFY]