SuperAPI AI Directory
Partner with us中文AI newsFavorites
Skillspolicy-redraft

policy-redraft

Writing & research

View repository

Updated 10-15 20:29

About this skill

/policy-redraft
  1. Read ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal-zh/regulatory-legal/CLAUDE.md → policy repository index + practice configuration.
  2. Use the following workflow.
  3. Collect inputs: the gap (from /regulatory-legal:gaps output or described directly), the current approved policy text, the regulatory text.
  4. Verify the regulation is in force (per the regulatory status check in policy diff analysis).
  5. Produce a marked-up revision of the affected policy sections — minimal edits,[需核实] tags throughout, inline comments explaining the reason for each change.
  6. Output a policy revision memo. Write to a new file [政策名称]-proposed-redraft-[YYYY-MM-DD].md— never write to the source policy file.
  7. Do not close the gap in the tracker. The gap is closed when the revision is applied and approved — that is the policy owner's action.

This skill produces aproposal draft, not an edit. It writes to a new file whose filename is clearly marked as a draft. It never overwrites the source policy file, and never closes the gap in the tracker — the gap is closed when the revision is applied and approved.

Hard guardrails — read these first

  1. This is a proposal draft, not an edit. Output is written to a new file [政策名称]-proposed-redraft-[YYYY-MM-DD].md. Not [政策名称].md。
  2. Never close the gap in the tracker. The gap is closed when the revision is applied and approved — that is the policy owner's action.
  3. "Help me apply this" is out of scope. If the user asks to apply the revision to the source policy: "I do not apply policy changes — that is the policy owner's action after review and approval. I produce a proposal draft. Once it has been reviewed and approved, tell me and I will update the gap tracker."
  4. Confirm the policy version before revising.
  5. Minimize edits. Deleting a word is preferable to deleting a sentence, and deleting a sentence is preferable to deleting a paragraph.
  6. Throughout [需核实] tags. Any effective dates, thresholds, citations, or requirements from model knowledge or unverified sources are marked in the revision itself, not just in the memo.

Step 1: Collect inputs

Three inputs are needed. If any are missing, ask — do not infer.

1a. Gap

  • A gap from the gap tracker: GAP-ID
  • A gap described by the user in the message
  • From /regulatory-legal:policy-diff A pasted diff analysis summary

1b. Current policy text

  • File path — after reading, ask whether it is the latest approved version
  • Pasted text — trust but mark
  • Neither — request it. Do not guess policy text from the gap tracker or web search

1c. Regulatory text

  • Diff analysis output (regulation already extracted and marked)
  • Regulation already retrieved — note the source
  • Regulatory text pasted by the user — mark [用户提供]

Step 2: Verify the regulation is in force

Use the same as policy-diff The same regulatory status check pattern. Check for delayed, suspended, amended, or repealed. If unverifiable, flag it.

Step 3: Produce the revised draft

A marked-up version of the affected policy section.

Revision granularity—minimize edits

  • Deleting one word is preferable to deleting one sentence
  • Deleting one sentence is preferable to deleting one paragraph
  • Touch only the sections involved in the gap

Conventions

  • Deleted text:~~删除文本~~
  • Inserted text:Inserted text
  • Each change is accompanied by an inline comment explaining why

Step 4: Output—policy revision memo

[工作成果头 — 按照插件配置 ## 输出]

> **⚠️ 审阅者说明**
> - **来源：** [法律研究连接器：元典MCP ✓已验证 | 未连接——引用来自模型知识，依赖前需核实]
> - **已阅读：** [已审阅的政策章节；未阅读的内容]
> - **标记为需你判断：** [N项内联标记为 `[审阅]` | 无]
> - **时效性：** [法规状态——已核实 | 未核实]
> - **依赖前：** 确认这是政策的当前已批准版本；核实法规状态和生效日期；获得政策负责人的审阅；遵循你的政策变更批准流程；仅在应用并批准后更新差距跟踪器。

## 政策修订稿：[政策名称]

**差距：** [GAP-ID 或简短描述]
**法规：** [名称、引用、生效日期]
**政策：** [名称、最后更新日期]
**状态：** 建议稿 — 尚未审阅或批准

### 要点

[一句话：差距是什么]。[一句话：修订稿做了什么]。[一句话：什么需要审阅]

### 带标记的政策章节

[修订文本，附内联注释。仅受影响的章节。]

### 变更摘要

| # | 条款 | 当前 | 建议 | 原因 | 核实 |
|---|------|------|------|------|------|
| 1 | [章节] | [原文] | [修订后] | [法规依据] | [来源标签] |

### 应用前——检查清单

- [ ] 确认这是正在修订的政策的当前已批准版本
- [ ] 核实法规状态和生效日期
- [ ] 获得政策负责人的审阅
- [ ] 遵循你的政策变更批准流程
- [ ] 仅在应用并批准后更新差距跟踪器——不是之前

---

**下一步做什么？选择一个，我帮你推进：**

1. **应用并获取批准**——你审阅、分发给政策负责人、经过批准流程。批准后告诉我，我会标记差距已关闭。
2. **获取更多关于[X]的信息**——如果特定变更需要更多基础（需要核实的引注、阈值确认、管辖权问题）
3. **升级至[负责人/GC]**——如果修订稿提出的问题超出政策负责人的权限
4. **观望等待**——如果法规状态不确定或政策负责人不可用
5. **其他**——告诉我你想怎么做

File name

[政策名称]-proposed-redraft-[YYYY-MM-DD].md

Not [政策名称].md. Not [政策名称]-v2.md。

Interfaces with other skills

  • Upstream inputFrom policy-diff(requirement-by-requirement gap analysis) and gap-surfacer(tracker). Carry through its source labels and [需核实] markers.
  • Gap tracker status: This skill does not change the tracker. Do not mark a gap as closed, do not mark it as in progress, do not touch notified。
  • Severity floor: If the upstream gap is 🔴 or 🟠, the memo's key points carry that severity. Silent downgrading is a contradiction the reviewing lawyer cannot see.

Closing

The output template includes a next-step decision tree. Tailor the options to the actual output of the revised draft.

What this skill does not do

  • Apply the revised draft to the source policy. That is the policy owner's action.
  • Close the gap in the tracker. A gap is closed when the revised draft is applied and approved.
  • Rewrite the entire policy. Minimize edits to close the gap.
  • Produce a multi-policy revised draft. One gap, one policy, one memo.