1. Description
This skill is used when a legal provision still cannot yield a definite conclusion after literal interpretation, to systematically discover and justify the purpose of the provision, select the most legitimate meaning within the range the text can bear, and ultimately form a judicially usable interpretive conclusion.
Trigger conditions (any one suffices to invoke):
- Literal interpretation has been completed, but the provision has two or more literal possibilities and no single one can be chosen
- The conclusion of literal interpretation leads to a clearly unreasonable result
- The provision contains open-ended evaluative concepts (such as "reasonable," "legitimate," "necessary," "significant"), and the literal meaning cannot fully define them
- The provision is relatively old, and its literal meaning provides insufficient coverage when faced with novel facts
2. Capabilities
- Identify the provision/concept/sentence requiring interpretation, and compress the dispute into a single concrete legal question
- Reconstruct the legislator's original intent from three levels: the text of the legal provision, legislative materials, and legislative background
- Construct the reasonable purpose the provision should currently bear from four dimensions: institutional function, legal values, practical needs, and authoritative adjudication
- Determine whether the relationship is consistent/complementary/conflicting; in case of conflict, allocate weight according to three criteria: recency of the regulation, specificity of the provision, and rule/principle nature
- Transform the abstract purpose into a concrete judgment of the provision's meaning
- Test the conclusion for literal-text constraints, systemic coherence, higher-law principles, and public persuasiveness
3. How to Use
PHASE_1: 技能衔接
├── STEP_1: 接收文义解释结果
│ ├── INPUT: 前序文义解释skill的输出
│ ├── ACTION: 提取以下信息（任一即可）
│ │ ├── 解释对象 → 具体条文/概念/句子
│ │ ├── 文义可能含义
│ │ ├── 文义边界 → 文字可能射程的上下限
│ │ └── 文义不足原因 → 歧义/抽象/不合理/新型事实
│ └── OUTPUT: 结构化的解释起点
│
├── STEP_2: 确定争议问题
│ ├── ACTION: 将争议压缩为一个具体问题句
│ ├── FORMAT: "《X法》第X条中的'Y'在本案中应理解为A还是B？"
│ └── RULE: 问题越窄越好，禁止使用宽泛表述，如"应否支持诉请"等
PHASE_2: 识别目的
├── STEP_4: 寻找主观目的
│ ├── 数据源（按优先级排列）
│ │ ├── L1: 法条本身 → 用语/结构/位置/宗旨条款/章节标题/序言
│ │ ├── L2: 立法说明材料 → 草案说明/审议报告/修法说明/起草说明
│ │ └── L3: 立法背景 → 当时要解决的现实问题/旧规则不足之处/新增修改删除原因
│ ├── OUTPUT_FORMAT: 一句完整的目的陈述
│ │ ├── 要："该条主观目的在于通过[手段]，防止/实现[具体效果]"
│ │ └── 不要："保护权益""维护秩序"（禁止口号式表述）
│ └── IF 立法材料不足或模糊
│ └── → 标记为"主观目的不明确"，在STEP_6中增加客观目的权重
│
├── STEP_5: 寻找客观目的
│ ├── 分析维度（全部检查）
│ │ ├── D1: 制度整体
│ │ │ ├── 该条是一般规则 OR 例外规则？
│ │ │ ├── 在本章/本编承担什么功能？
│ │ │ └── 某种解释是否会破坏制度安排？
│ │ ├── D2: 基本原则与法律价值
│ │ │ └── 涉及哪些？→ 平等/诚信/权利保护/交易安全/责任自负/公共安全/人格尊严/...
│ │ ├── D3: 现实社会需求
│ │ │ └── 新技术场景/新交易结构/新型侵权方式/新型风险路径
│ │ └── D4: 权威裁判中的目的表达
│ │ └── 指导性案例/公报案例/典型案例
│ └── OUTPUT_FORMAT: 同STEP_4，一句完整的目的陈述
PHASE_3: 整合与结论
├── STEP_6: 整合主客观目的
│ ├── CASE_1: 一致
│ │ └── → 直接整合，双重印证，说服力最强
│ ├── CASE_2: 主观不清 + 客观清楚
│ │ └── → 说明材料不足，以客观目的为主导
│ └── CASE_3: 冲突
│ └── → 按以下三个标准进行权衡
│ ├── 标准1: 法规新旧程度 → 越新越重视主观，越旧越重视客观
│ ├── 标准2: 条文具体还是抽象 → 越具体越重视主观，越抽象越重视客观
│ └── 标准3: 规则还是原则 → 规则条文更重主观目的；原则条文更重客观目的
│
├── STEP_7: 形成解释结论
│ ├── ACTION: 将最终目的转化为具体含义判断
│ ├── 必须明确回答以下至少一项
│ │ ├── 该词/概念应作宽义解释 OR 窄义解释？
│ │ ├── 该例外条款应严格解释 OR 扩张解释？
│ │ ├── 本案事实应纳入 OR 排除于适用范围？
│ │ └── 该行为是否落入条文规制对象？
│ └── RULE: 目的本身≠结论，必须落到可裁判的含义判断
│
└── STEP_8: 合法性复核（四项全部通过方可输出）
├── CHECK_1: 文义限制 → 结论是否仍在文字可能射程内？
├── CHECK_2: 体系协调 → 结论是否让相邻条文失去意义？
├── CHECK_3: 上位法原则 → 结论是否违背基本价值？
└── CHECK_4: 公开说服力 → 论证能否经受公开审视？
├── IF 全部通过 → 输出最终结果
└── IF 任一未通过 → 回到STEP_6重新权衡
4. Input Format
# 必填项
prior_textual_interpretation: # 前序文义解释的输出结果
target: "" # 解释对象（具体条文全文，含编号及法律名称）
disputed_expression: "" # 争议概念/表述
reason_insufficient: "" # 文义不足的原因
case_summary: "" # 案情摘要
# 选填项
possible_meanings: [] # 文义解释得出的可能含义列表
textual_boundary: "" # 文字可能射程边界
legislative_materials: "" # 草案说明/审议报告/修法说明等
related_provisions: [] # 体系关联条文
existing_views: [] # 已有的不同解释立场或裁判观点
text_type: [] # 法律规范 | 合同 | 遗嘱 | 其他私法文本
5. Output Format
purposive_interpretation:
section_1_dispute:
label: "争议提出"
content: "本案争议在于，《X法》第X条中的'Y'应如何理解。"
section_2_textual_bridge:
label: "文义衔接"
content: "文义解释失败的原因在于[...]。"
section_3_necessity:
label: "目的解释必要性"
content: "由于[条文抽象/多义/机械理解导致.../新型事实张力]，需结合条文目的进行解释。"
section_4_subjective_purpose:
label: "主观目的论证"
source: "[法条文本/立法说明/立法背景]"
conclusion: "该条主观目的在于：通过[手段]，[实现/防止][具体效果]。"
section_5_objective_purpose:
label: "客观目的论证"
dimensions_checked: [制度整体, 基本原则与价值, 现实需求, 权威裁判]
conclusion: "该条客观目的在于：在[制度语境]下，[实现/维持/防止][具体效果]。"
section_6_integration_and_conclusion:
label: "整合与结论"
purpose_alignment: "一致 | 主观不清 | 冲突"
conflict_resolution: "（如冲突）依据[新旧/具体程度/规则原则]标准，[主观/客观]目的权重更大。"
interpretation_result: "'Y'在本案中应理解为[具体含义]，因此[具体裁判结论]。"
legality_check:
textual_limit: "通过/未通过"
systematic_coherence: "通过/未通过"
superior_principles: "通过/未通过"
public_persuasiveness: "通过/未通过"
6. Example Usage
Input
prior_textual_interpretation:
target: "《民法典》第1176条第1款：'自愿参加具有一定风险的文体活动，因其他参加者的行为受到损害的，受害人不得请求其他参加者承担侵权责任；但是，其他参加者对损害的发生有故意或者重大过失的除外。'"
disputed_expression: "重大过失"
reason_insufficient: "评价性概念，'重大'的程度边界无法仅从字面获得确定答案"
case_summary: "甲乙均为业余足球爱好者，参加社区业余足球赛。乙在争抢球时采用飞铲动作，致甲右腿胫骨骨折。甲起诉要求赔偿，乙以自甘风险条款抗辩。争议焦点：乙的飞铲是否构成'重大过失'。"
possible_meanings:
- "含义A（宽义）：明显违反一般注意义务，违反程度较为显著"
- "含义B（窄义）：几乎完全不顾他人安全、接近放任损害发生的极端疏忽"
textual_boundary: "'重大过失'语义上限不超过故意，下限高于一般过失，但具体门槛文义无法确定"
legislative_materials: "全国人大常委会法工委《民法典释义》：该条旨在回应文体活动伤害纠纷中责任标准不一的问题，鼓励正常文体活动开展。"
related_provisions:
- "《民法典》第1165条（过错责任一般条款）"
- "《民法典》第1176条第2款（活动组织者责任）"
text_type: "法律规范"
Output
purposive_interpretation:
section_1_dispute:
label: "争议提出"
content: "本案争议在于，《民法典》第1176条第1款但书中的'重大过失'应如何理解——业余足球赛中的飞铲致人骨折是否构成'重大过失'，从而排除自甘风险免责的适用。"
section_2_textual_bridge:
label: "文义衔接"
content: "经文义解释，'重大过失'存在宽义（明显违反一般注意义务）与窄义（接近放任的极端疏忽）两种理解。'重大'为程度性评价概念，语义上限不超过故意、下限高于一般过失，但具体门槛文义无法确定。"
section_3_necessity:
label: "目的解释必要性"
content: "该概念属于开放性评价概念，文义无法划定确切边界。且该但书的适用门槛直接决定自甘风险规则与过错责任规则的分界线，过宽则架空自甘风险条款，过窄则纵容极端危险行为。需结合条文目的确定合理边界。"
section_4_subjective_purpose:
label: "主观目的论证"
source: "法工委释义说明 + 立法背景"
reasoning: "第1176条系民法典首次确立自甘风险规则，回应此前文体活动伤害纠纷中标准不一、参加者责任过重、抑制正常活动开展的问题。但书设置表明立法者并非完全免责，而是为免责划底线。"
conclusion: "该条但书主观目的在于：在鼓励正常文体活动、合理分配固有风险的前提下，将明显逾越活动内在风险范围、严重背离基本注意义务的行为排除出免责范围，防止自甘风险规则被滥用。"
section_5_objective_purpose:
label: "客观目的论证"
dimensions_checked:
制度整体: "第1176条与第1165条构成'原则（过错责任）—例外（自甘风险免责）'关系。但书作为'例外之例外'，功能是防止例外规则过度扩张。'重大过失'门槛不应过低（否则例外形同虚设）也不应等同于故意（否则但书失去独立意义）。"
基本原则与价值: "涉及行为自由与人身安全的平衡。自愿参加体现意思自治，但人身安全不能因'自愿'被无限让渡。"
现实需求: "业余参加者缺乏专业训练和防护，风险承受与识别能力低于专业运动员，认定标准应适度考虑参加者实际能力和活动风险特征。"
权威裁判: "略"
conclusion: "该条但书客观目的在于：在维护文体活动正常开展的同时，确保当参加者行为明显偏离该活动合理对抗范围、足以破坏风险自担正当性基础时，受害人仍能获得侵权法救济。"
section_6_integration_and_conclusion:
label: "整合与结论"
purpose_alignment: "一致"
conflict_resolution: "主客观目的方向一致，双重印证，无需权衡。"
interpretation_result: >
"重大过失"不应理解为一切轻率或技术粗糙的行为，也不应抬高到接近故意的程度，
而应理解为：明显背离该项文体活动参加者应有的基本注意义务，严重逾越该活动固有风险和合理对抗范围的行为。
本案中，飞铲在业余足球赛中明显超出合理对抗强度，业余参加者不具备专业飞铲技术和自我保护能力，
乙的行为严重偏离基本注意义务，已逾越固有风险合理范围，应认定为"重大过失"。
乙不得援引自甘风险免责，应依第1165条承担侵权责任。
legality_check:
textual_limit: "通过 — 结论在'重大过失'语义射程内"
systematic_coherence: "通过 — 与第1165条、第1176条第2款体系协调"
superior_principles: "通过 — 符合人身安全保护的基本价值"
public_persuasiveness: "通过 — 论证可经受公开审视"
7. Best Practices
- First find the direct regulatory purpose of the individual provision → institutional purpose → departmental law/legal order value purpose.
- Write it as "achieve/prevent [specific effect] through [means]"; prioritize identifying the direct regulatory purpose of the individual provision, then ascend to the institutional purpose and legal order values. Do not start by speaking vaguely about fairness, justice, and order.
- When subjective and objective purposes conflict, address it head-on: do not evade it; allocate weight according to the three criteria (recency/specificity/rule-principle).
- Purpose is not equal to conclusion; the purpose must be transformed into concrete meaning judgments such as "broad/narrow," "include/exclude," "strict/expansive."
- The output may be produced only after all four checks are passed; if any one is not passed, go back and reweigh.
- When legislative materials are insufficient, mark this truthfully, increase the weight of objective purpose, and do not fabricate legislative intent.
8. Limitations
- This skill must be invoked after literal interpretation is completed, and literal interpretation may not be skipped to use it directly.
- The interpretive conclusion may not exceed the possible semantic range of the provision's wording.
- Value judgments such as "fairness" and "justice" must be anchored in specific provisions, institutions, and case facts, and may not drift from the text into empty talk about values.
- The conclusion may not clearly contradict adjacent provisions or higher-law principles.
- There is no fixed priority between subjective purpose and objective purpose; they must be weighed in light of specific factors.
- It applies only to legal interpretation, not to legal development (gap-filling, analogical application). When a provision fundamentally does not cover the facts to be decided, one should turn to other methodological tools.
- The output is a structured legal analysis and argument, has no legal effect, and actual cases require consideration of complete evidence, procedural requirements, and judicial discretion.