amicus-curiae-brief
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.
Best use case
amicus-curiae-brief is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
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.
Teams using amicus-curiae-brief should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/amicus-curiae-brief/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How amicus-curiae-brief Compares
| Feature / Agent | amicus-curiae-brief | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
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.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
SKILL.md Source
# Amicus Curiae Brief 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. ## Quick Start 1. Gather intake (forum, stage, party briefs, amicus profile, disclosure facts) 2. Build compliance map from governing rules 3. Select an additive thesis that fills a gap in party arguments 4. Draft brief with record-safe fact handling 5. Verify all authorities and run quality audit ## Intake (Mandatory) Collect before drafting (skip only if user says "use defaults"): - **Forum/stage** — court, caption, docket number, cert vs. merits, panel or en banc - **Deadlines** — docket schedule, amicus-specific orders - **Party briefs** — at minimum the supported party's principal brief - **Record anchors** — record cites used by parties for adjudicative facts - **Amicus profile** — entity, mission, expertise, relationship to parties - **Position** — supports petitioner/respondent/neither; requested disposition - **Consent/leave** — consent status, whether motion for leave is needed - **Disclosure facts** — authorship and funding (Rule 29(a)(4)(E) / Rule 37.6) - **Formatting** — word/page limits, font, cover color, copy counts - **Sources** — primary sources for legislative facts or empirical claims **Defaults if unspecified:** federal circuit FRAP 29; standard amicus word limits; hybrid expertise/systemic-consequences thesis. ## Step 1: Compliance Map | 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 | ## Step 2: Select Additive Thesis Extract party argument chain; identify the gap. Choose one primary thesis: - **Expertise translation** — technical/industry knowledge parties lack - **Systemic consequences** — how ruling affects non-parties and broader systems - **Doctrinal harmonization** — fit with related precedent or statutory schemes - **Historical/structural framing** — legislative history, original understanding, institutional design State thesis in one sentence for the Summary of Argument. ### Record-Safety Rules | 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 | ## Step 3: Draft Brief Structure: 1. Cover Page 2. Table of Contents / Table of Authorities 3. Disclosure Statement (FRAP 29(a)(4)(E) or Rule 37.6) 4. Statement of Interest of Amicus Curiae 5. Summary of Argument 6. Argument — conclusion-style headings; each section ties to verified source or record cite; address counterarguments; translate technical content for judges 7. Conclusion 8. Certificate of Compliance / Certificate of Service / Signature Block Use bracketed placeholders (`[VERIFY]`, `[X words]`, `[date]`) for any unconfirmed detail. ### Disclosure and Certificates (Verbatim Required) - **Disclosure statement** (FRAP 29(a)(4)(E), Supreme Court Rule 37.6, or forum equivalent): copy current rule language verbatim after verification; do not paraphrase required rule text. - **Certificate of Compliance**: include rule citation, exact word count, statement of typeface/style compliance if required, signer name, date, and signature line. Use verbatim rule language where mandated. - **Certificate of Service**: include rule citation, service method(s), service date, recipient list (or filing-system service statement if permitted), declarant name, date, and signature line. Use verbatim rule language where mandated. ```text 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/] ``` ## Step 4: Deliverables Prefix every output with: 1. **Assumptions** — forum, posture, consent status, thesis, governing rules 2. **Open Items** — missing briefs, unconfirmed rules, outstanding disclosure facts ## Post-Draft Check (Mandatory) Ask after delivering initial draft: 1. Does the thesis add a perspective the party briefs do not? 2. Are disclosure facts (authorship, funding) confirmed? 3. Should additional authorities or empirical sources be added? 4. Is the tone correct for this court and amicus role? ## Quality Audit Verify before finalizing: - [ ] Rule text confirmed against current forum rules - [ ] Consent/leave requirements satisfied - [ ] Disclosure statement matches rule text and confirmed facts - [ ] Thesis is additive — no duplication of party arguments - [ ] All adjudicative facts tied to record cites - [ ] All legislative facts sourced and context-framed - [ ] Unverified authorities flagged `[VERIFY]` - [ ] TOC/TOA accurate; word count within limits - [ ] Assumptions and open items listed prominently ## Critical Rules - Never restate party arguments — thesis must be additive - Never introduce adjudicative facts outside the record - Never fabricate citations, rule text, or empirical data — flag `[VERIFY]` if unconfirmed - Do not assume FRAP applies — confirm state appellate rules when applicable - Supreme Court briefs: Rule 37.6 disclosures + Supreme Court Bar signature `[VERIFY]` - State rules (CA 8.200(c), NY 500.23) must be independently confirmed `[VERIFY]` - All output requires attorney review before filing
Related Skills
summary-judgment-brief
Drafts FRCP 56 summary judgment motion briefs for U.S. commercial litigation. Synthesizes discovery evidence with controlling authority to show no genuine dispute of material fact. Use when drafting MSJ briefs, dispositive motions, or partial summary judgment papers post-discovery.
reply-brief-appellant
Drafts an appellant's Reply Brief that rebuts the appellee's response and reinforces the case for reversal. Triggers when drafting appellant reply briefs, appellate rebuttals, or the final pre-argument written submission.
policy-brief
Generates structured public policy briefs analyzing legislation across economic, social, legal, and implementation dimensions. Use when drafting legislative impact analyses, policy summaries, regulatory briefs, or government affairs memoranda for lawmakers, lobbyists, or civic organizations.
mediation-brief
Drafts mediation briefs for commercial litigation that educate the mediator on facts, law, damages, and litigation risks while advancing settlement. Use when preparing for mediation sessions, drafting pre-mediation submissions, or creating settlement briefs.
markman-hearing-brief
Drafts Markman Hearing Briefs for patent claim construction under the Phillips framework. Structures disputed-term analysis from intrinsic evidence (claims, specification, prosecution history) with local-rule-compliant formatting. Use when preparing claim construction briefs, Markman hearing submissions, or patent claim interpretation arguments in US federal court.
extend-time-brief
Drafts appellate motions to extend time for filing briefs (opening, answering, or reply) in U.S. appellate courts. Demonstrates good cause through specific verifiable facts, addresses opposing counsel's position, and ensures rule compliance. Use when drafting extension of time motions, appellate deadline extensions, or briefing schedule modifications.
case-briefs
Generates structured case briefs from judicial opinions. Use when the user provides a court opinion and needs a case brief, case summary, or distillation of a judicial decision for legal research.
appellees-response-brief
Drafts an Appellee's Response Brief defending the trial court's judgment and arguing for affirmance. Covers standard of review analysis, record-based rebuttal, authority distinction, and procedural compliance. Trigger when drafting appellee briefs, response briefs, answering briefs, or defending trial court judgments on appeal.
appellee-response-brief
Drafts appellee response briefs for federal and state appellate courts, exploiting standards of review and record evidence to defend trial court decisions. Trigger when the user needs to respond to an appellant's opening brief or defend a favorable lower court ruling on appeal.
appellant-brief
Drafts the appellant's opening brief challenging a lower court decision in federal or state appellate courts. Covers issue selection, standard of review framing, record citation, argument structure, and procedural compliance under FRAP 28/32 or state equivalents. Use when preparing an appellant's opening brief, selecting appellate issues, structuring appellate arguments, or demonstrating reversible error on appeal.
amicus-interest-statement
Drafts the "Interest of Amicus Curiae" section of an amicus brief. Establishes institutional credibility, tethers the amicus's interest to the specific legal question, articulates non-party impacts, and embeds disclosure guardrails under FRAP 29 and Supreme Court Rule 37. Trigger when drafting amicus briefs, friend-of-the-court filings, interest statements, amicus disclosures, or when the user asks why an organization belongs in a case.
amicus-coalition
Manages end-to-end workflow for multi-organization amicus coalition briefs in appellate courts. Covers single-pen drafting governance, position alignment, conflict resolution, documented sign-offs, FRAP 29/Rule 37.6 disclosures, FRAP 26.1 corporate disclosures, cover formatting for multiple amici, and compliant filing. Use when coordinating coalition amicus briefs, managing sign-offs, drafting joint friend-of-court briefs, handling multi-amici filing, or resolving inter-organization conflicts. Triggers on phrases like "coalition brief," "12 orgs joining this amicus," or "coordinate the amicus."