- Read
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal-zh/regulatory-legal/CLAUDE.md→ policy library index. - Use the following workflow.
- Extract requirements from the regulation. Match against indexed policies.
- Output: a requirement-by-requirement gap analysis, which policies need updating.
Matter context
Matter context. Check the practice-level CLAUDE.md for ## 事务工作区If 已启用 is ✗(the default for in-house legal users), skip the rest of this section—the skill uses practice-level context and the matter mechanism is invisible. If enabled and there is no active matter, ask about matter ownership. Load the active matter's matter.md. Unless 跨事务上下文 is 开, never read files from other matters.
Purpose
The regulation changed. You have policies. This skill finds out which policies the change touches and what the gaps are between "what the regulation now requires" and "what the policy states".
Load context
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal-zh/regulatory-legal/CLAUDE.md → policy library index (policies, locations, owners).
Scope completeness
If the user asks you to exclude a policy section, requirement, or category from the gap analysis:
- Do it—the user has scope control.
- But flag it loudly and permanently: "⚠️ Scope limitation: Section [X] was excluded at the user's request. This gap analysis does not reflect the complete policy. Gaps within the excluded area were not identified." Place it above the header and pass it through to all downstream artifacts.
- Pass the flag to
gap-surfacer: "This gap analysis has a scope limitation. It must not be presented as a complete compliance picture." - Explain what the exclusion means: "Excluding vendor management means the gap analysis will show 'no policy covers vendor management'—which is worse than showing a gap."
A compliance artifact built on an undisclosed scope exclusion may be seen as concealment in discovery. The flag is the difference between "we limited the scope of review" and "we hid the problem".
Workflow
Step 0: Verify the regulation's status before the gap analysis
Before running a gap analysis against policies, confirm that the regulation is actually in effect. The following red flags indicate the regulation may not be in effect:
- The applicability/compliance date passed more than 30 days ago, but you have not confirmed it was not delayed
- The regulation was published more than 12 months ago
- The regulation is controversial (major rulemakings are frequently challenged)
When you see a red flag, check (via a legal research MCP or, if enabled, web search or the issuing agency's official website) whether there is: a delay, suspension, injunction, repeal proposal, repeal, or amendment. If you can check and confirm the regulation is in effect, continue. If you cannot verify (no tools connected), issue this banner above the header:
⚠️ 法规状态未验证 — 我无法确认此法规当前有效。规章经常在发布后被暂停、延期或废止。在确认该法规在发布机构的官方网站上的当前状态或咨询外部律师之前，请勿将下文的任何合规日期视为具有约束力。
Mark every deadline in the output as:[据发布法规的截止日期 — 状态未验证]。
Step 1: Extract new requirements
Do not silently fill them in. If the regulatory change text is incomplete or ambiguous, and a more complete regulation cannot be obtained from indexed sources, stop and ask. Do not fill gaps with web search or model knowledge without asking.
Read the regulatory changes. List each discrete new or changed requirement:
| # | Requirement | Effective Date | Statutory Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [Requirement content] | [Date] | [Provision] |
Be specific. "Enhanced information disclosure requirements" is not a requirement. "Must disclose X in Y format at point Z in the process" is.
Step 2: Map to Policy
For each requirement, which indexed policy is the closest?
- Direct hit: the policy explicitly covers this topic
- Indirect hit: the policy covers a related topic, and this is a new sub-issue
- No match: no policy covers this topic — the gap is "policy does not exist"
Step 3: Gap Analysis
For each direct or indirect hit, read the policy and compare:
### 要求[N]：[名称]
**新法规要求：** [要求]
**我方政策（[名称]，最后更新[日期]）规定：**
> "[相关摘录]"
**差距：** [无 — 政策已涵盖此内容 | 部分 — 政策涵盖X但不涵盖Y | 完全 — 政策矛盾或未涉及]
**需要的变更：** [具体——"添加一段关于X的内容"而非"更新政策"]
**政策负责人：** [来源自索引]
Step 4: Unmatched Gaps
Requirements with no policy match are listed separately:
### 需要制定新政策
要求[N]：[要求]
现有政策中无此内容。选项：
- 起草新政策（建议负责人：[拥有最接近主题的人]）
- 作为新章节添加到现有[相关政策]
- 确定此项不需要政策（一次性合规，非持续性）
Branch by Regulatory Input Type
Pre-rule branch (advance notice of proposed rulemaking/research notice)
If the regulatory input is an advance notice of proposed rulemaking or research notice (no imposed requirements), do not run the full gap-closure gap analysis. Instead produce apreliminary analysis。
Negative conclusion branch (final rule/proposed rule gap analysis, target policy is not the right object)
If all requirements for the specified policy are "no gap", compress into a short paragraph and recommend re-running the gap analysis on other policies that may actually be affected.
Gap branch (final rule/proposed rule, at least one gap)
The full requirement-by-requirement analysis is as follows.
Output
[工作成果头 — 按照插件配置 ## 输出]
## 政策差异分析：[法规名称]
**法规：** [名称、链接]
**生效日期：** [日期]
**提取的要求：** [N] 项
### 要点
[N个差距需要在[日期]前采取行动 — 前3项：X、Y、Z]
### 摘要
| # | 要求 | 受影响的政策 | 差距 | 负责人 |
|---|------|-------------|------|--------|
| 1 | [简述] | [政策名称或"无"] | 无/部分/完全 | [姓名] |
### 详细差异分析
[来自第3步的每个要求块]
### 需要制定新政策
[来自第4步，如有]
### 无差距的要求
[列出——了解已覆盖的内容是有用的]
---
**依赖前核实引注。** 上述法规引注和政策引用由AI生成，未经对照一手来源核实。在对本处任何要求采取行动之前，通过法律研究工具（元典MCP、你的律所研究平台或发布机构的官方网站）确认相关法规——核实准确性、生效日期和当前状态。
Handoff
Pass to gap-surfacer: each partial or complete gap becomes a tracked item with an owner and a deadline.
Closing
Close with the next-step decision tree specified in CLAUDE.md ## 输出 .
What This Skill Does Not Do
- Draft policy updates. It identifies what needs to be updated; policy drafting (or a human) is responsible for drafting.
- Authoritatively interpret ambiguous regulatory text. If the regulation can be read in two ways, state this and flag it as requiring lawyer judgment.