policy-redraft

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

/policy-redraft

Load

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/regulatory-legal/CLAUDE.md

→ policy library index + practice profile.

Use the workflow below.
Gather inputs: the gap (from
```
/regulatory-legal:gaps
```
output or described directly), the current approved policy text, the rule text.
Verify the rule is current (per the policy-diff rule-status check). If you can't verify, emit the
```
⚠️ RULE STATUS UNVERIFIED
```
banner.
Produce a marked-up redraft of the affected policy section(s) — smallest-possible edit,
```
[verify]
```
tags carried through, inline comments explaining WHY each change was made.
Output a Policy Redraft Memo. Write it to a new file named
```
[policy-name]-proposed-redraft-[YYYY-MM-DD].md
```
— never write to the source policy document.
Do NOT close the gap in the tracker. The gap closes when the redraft is applied AND approved, which is the policy owner's action.

This skill produces a proposal, not an edit. It writes to a new file with a clearly-marked draft filename. It never writes over a source policy document, and it never closes a gap in the tracker — the gap closes when the redraft is applied AND approved by the policy owner.

加载

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/regulatory-legal/CLAUDE.md

→ 政策库索引 + 实务配置文件。

遵循以下工作流程。
收集输入信息：漏洞（来自
```
/regulatory-legal:gaps
```
输出或用户直接描述）、当前已批准的政策文本、法规文本。
验证法规是否有效（按照policy-diff的法规状态检查规则）。若无法验证，输出
```
⚠️ RULE STATUS UNVERIFIED
```
提示栏。
生成受影响政策章节的带标记重写版本——尽可能最小化修改，保留
```
[verify]
```
标签，并添加行内注释说明每项修改的原因。
输出政策重写备忘录。将其写入新文件，命名为
```
[policy-name]-proposed-redraft-[YYYY-MM-DD].md
```
——切勿写入源政策文档。
不要在漏洞追踪器中标记漏洞已解决。只有当重写内容被应用且获得批准后，漏洞才算解决，此操作由政策所有者完成。

本技能生成的是提案，而非直接修改。输出内容会写入带有明确草稿标识的新文件。绝不会覆盖源政策文档，也不会在漏洞追踪器中标记漏洞已解决——只有当政策所有者应用并批准重写内容后，漏洞才算解决。

Matter context

事项上下文

Matter context. Check

## Matter workspaces

in the practice-level CLAUDE.md. If

Enabled

✗

(the default for in-house users), skip the rest of this paragraph — skills use practice-level context and the matter machinery is invisible. If enabled and there is no active matter, ask: "Which matter is this for? Run

/regulatory-legal:matter-workspace switch <slug>

or say

practice-level

." Load the active matter's

matter.md

for matter-specific context and overrides. Write outputs to the matter folder at

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/regulatory-legal/matters/<matter-slug>/

. Never read another matter's files unless

Cross-matter context

on

事项上下文。查看实务级CLAUDE.md中的

## Matter workspaces

。若

Enabled

为

✗

（内部用户默认设置），则跳过本段剩余内容——技能将使用实务级上下文，事项机制不可见。若已启用且无活跃事项，请询问：“此操作对应哪个事项？请运行

/regulatory-legal:matter-workspace switch <slug>

或选择

practice-level

。”加载活跃事项的

matter.md

以获取特定事项的上下文和覆盖规则。将输出写入事项文件夹

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/regulatory-legal/matters/<matter-slug>/

。除非

Cross-matter context

为

on

，否则切勿读取其他事项的文件。

Purpose

目的

Gap-surfacer finds the gap. Policy-diff names what needs to change. This skill takes the next step and produces a marked-up redraft of the affected policy section — small, specific, flagged — as a first draft for the policy owner's review.

漏洞发现工具负责定位漏洞，policy-diff明确需要修改的内容。本技能则迈出下一步，生成受影响政策章节的带标记重写版本——内容精简、针对性强、带有标记——作为供政策所有者审核的初稿。

Hard guardrails — read these first

硬性规则——请先阅读

These are the load-bearing rules. If any of them would be violated, stop and ask.

This is a PROPOSAL, not an edit. Never write directly to a source policy document. The output goes to a new file at
```
[policy-name]-proposed-redraft-[YYYY-MM-DD].md
```
, or into the matter workspace. Not
```
[policy-name].md
```
.
Never close the gap in the tracker. Gaps close when the redraft is APPLIED AND APPROVED — that is the policy owner's action, not yours. If the user says "close the gap now that you've redrafted it," decline: "I produce the proposal. The gap closes when you've reviewed, applied, and approved the change. When that's done, tell me and I'll update the tracker."
"Apply this for me" is not in scope. If the user asks you to apply the redraft to the source policy: "I don't apply policy changes — that's the policy owner's action after review and approval. I produce the proposal. When it's been reviewed and approved, tell me and I'll update the gap tracker."
Confirm the policy version before redrafting. If the user gives you a file, ask: "Is this the approved version of the policy, and is it the latest? A redraft against an outdated policy creates divergence." If they paste text, trust but flag in the reviewer note.
Smallest-possible edit. Strike a word before a sentence, a sentence before a paragraph, a paragraph before a section. Only touch sections affected by the gap. Don't restyle the policy.
Carry
[verify]
tags through. Any effective date, threshold, citation, or requirement that came from model knowledge or an unverified source gets tagged in the redraft itself, not just in the memo.

这些是核心规则。若可能违反任何一条，请停止操作并询问用户。

此为提案，而非直接修改。绝不能直接写入源政策文档。输出内容需写入新文件
```
[policy-name]-proposed-redraft-[YYYY-MM-DD].md
```
，或写入事项工作区。不得写入
```
[policy-name].md
```
。
切勿在漏洞追踪器中标记漏洞已解决。只有当重写内容被应用且获得批准后，漏洞才算解决——此为政策所有者的操作，而非本技能的职责。若用户要求“重写完成后立即标记漏洞已解决”，请拒绝：“我仅生成提案。当您审核、应用并批准修改后，漏洞才算解决。完成后请告知我，我会更新追踪器。”
“帮我应用修改”不在本技能范围内。若用户要求将重写内容应用到源政策文档，请回复：“我无法执行政策修改操作——此为政策所有者在审核批准后的职责。我仅生成提案。当修改获得审核批准后，请告知我，我会更新漏洞追踪器。”
重写前确认政策版本。若用户提供文件，请询问：“这是该政策的已批准版本吗？是否为最新版本？基于过时政策的重写会导致内容不一致。”若用户粘贴文本，请信任但在审核备注中标记：“政策文本由用户直接粘贴；我假设其为当前已批准版本。应用前请确认。”
尽可能最小化修改。优先删除单个词语，而非整句；优先删除整句，而非整段；优先删除整段，而非整个章节。仅修改受漏洞影响的章节。请勿调整政策格式。
保留
[verify]
标签。任何来自模型知识或未验证来源的生效日期、阈值、引用或要求，都需在重写内容中添加标签，而非仅在备忘录中标记。

Step 1: Gather inputs

步骤1：收集输入信息

Three inputs are required. If any is missing, ask — don't infer.

需要三个输入信息。若缺少任何一个，请询问用户——切勿自行推断。

1a. The gap

1a. 漏洞信息

One of:

GAP-ID

from the gap tracker — load the entry from

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/regulatory-legal/gap-tracker.yaml

(or the matter-level equivalent).

A gap described in the user's message — capture the requirement, the regulation, and the affected policy.
A diff summary pasted from
```
/regulatory-legal:policy-diff
```
output.

以下三者之一：

来自漏洞追踪器的

GAP-ID

——从

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/regulatory-legal/gap-tracker.yaml

（或对应事项级文件）加载条目。

用户消息中描述的漏洞——记录要求、法规及受影响的政策。
从
```
/regulatory-legal:policy-diff
```
输出中粘贴的差异摘要。

1b. The current policy text

1b. 当前政策文本

One of:

A file path — read it, then ask: "Is this the approved version of the policy, and is it the latest? A redraft against an outdated policy creates divergence." Note the answer in the reviewer note.
Pasted text — trust but flag in the reviewer note: "Policy text was pasted directly; I assumed it was the current approved version. Confirm before applying."
Neither — ask for one. Do not guess at the policy text from the gap tracker or from web search.

以下三者之一：

文件路径——读取文件后询问：“这是该政策的已批准版本吗？是否为最新版本？基于过时政策的重写会导致内容不一致。”将答案记录在审核备注中。
粘贴的文本——信任但在审核备注中标记：“政策文本由用户直接粘贴；我假设其为当前已批准版本。应用前请确认。”
以上皆无——请用户提供。切勿从漏洞追踪器或网络搜索中猜测政策文本。

1c. The rule text

1c. 法规文本

One of:

The diff output (already has the rule extracted and tagged).
A fetched regulation — note the source with a provenance tag.
Pasted rule text from the user — tag
```
[user provided]
```
.

If the rule text is partial or ambiguous, apply the no silent supplement rule from CLAUDE.md: offer the user the options (paste full text, point at primary source, web-search-with-verify-tag, or stop), and wait.

以下三者之一：

差异输出（已提取并标记法规）。
获取的法规——添加来源溯源标签。
用户粘贴的法规文本——标记
```
[user provided]
```
。

若法规文本不完整或模糊，请遵循CLAUDE.md中的“无静默补充”规则：为用户提供选项（粘贴完整文本、指向原始来源、带验证标签的网络搜索或停止操作），等待用户回复。

Step 2: Verify the rule is current

步骤2：验证法规有效性

Use the same rule-status check pattern as

policy-diff

. Red flags that the rule may not be in force:

The applicability/compliance date has passed by more than 30 days with no confirmation it wasn't delayed.
The rule is more than 12 months old.
The rule is a politically contentious final rule (major rulemakings are frequently challenged).

When you see a red flag, check (via research MCP, web search if enabled, or the Federal Register docket) for: delays, stays, injunctions, rescission proposals, vacatur, or amendments. If you can verify the rule is in force, proceed. If you cannot verify:

⚠️ RULE STATUS UNVERIFIED — I could not confirm this rule is currently in force. Final rules are frequently stayed, enjoined, delayed, or rescinded after publication. Do not apply this redraft until you confirm the rule's status at the Federal Register docket or with outside counsel.

Emit that banner above the work-product header. Tag every effective/compliance date in the redraft as

[effective date per published rule — status unverified]

使用与

policy-diff

相同的法规状态检查模式。以下迹象表明法规可能已失效：

适用/合规日期已超过30天，且未确认是否延期。
法规发布已超过12个月。
法规为具有政治争议性的最终规则（重大规则制定常受到质疑）。

若发现以上迹象，请通过研究MCP、启用的网络搜索或联邦公报目录检查：是否存在延期、暂停、禁令、撤销提案、无效或修订情况。若可验证法规有效，则继续操作。若无法验证：

⚠️ RULE STATUS UNVERIFIED — 我无法确认本法规当前是否生效。最终规则在发布后常被暂停、禁止、延期或撤销。在联邦公报目录或外部法律顾问确认法规状态前，请勿应用本重写内容。

在工作成果标题上方输出上述提示栏。在重写内容中，将每个生效/合规日期标记为

[effective date per published rule — status unverified]

。

Step 3: Produce the redraft

步骤3：生成重写内容

A marked-up version of the affected policy section.

受影响政策章节的带标记版本。

Redline granularity — smallest possible edit

修订粒度——尽可能最小化修改

Strike a word before a sentence.
Strike a sentence before a paragraph.
Strike a paragraph before a section.
Only touch sections affected by the gap. Don't restyle the whole policy.

优先删除单个词语，而非整句。
优先删除整句，而非整段。
优先删除整段，而非整个章节。
仅修改受漏洞影响的章节。请勿调整整个政策的格式。

Conventions

格式规范

Struck text:
```
~~struck text~~
```
Inserted text: inserted text

Each change carries an inline comment explaining WHY — the rule, the cite, the gap being closed:

[Change: added biometric identifiers to the PII definition per COPPA 2025 amendments, 16 CFR 312.2 (effective Apr 22 2026) [verify]]

Any effective date, threshold, citation, or requirement that came from model knowledge or an unverified source gets a
```
[verify]
```
tag inline — not just in the change summary.
Carry source tags through from the diff:
```
[Federal Register]
```
,
```
[web search — verify]
```
,
```
[model knowledge — verify]
```
,
```
[user provided]
```
. Don't strip them when moving from the diff to the redraft.

删除的文本：
```
~~删除文本~~
```
插入的文本：插入文本

每项修改需添加行内注释说明原因——法规、引用、填补的漏洞：

[修改说明：根据COPPA 2025修正案，将生物识别标识符添加到PII定义中，16 CFR 312.2（2026年4月22日生效）[verify]]

任何来自模型知识或未验证来源的生效日期、阈值、引用或要求，都需在行内添加
```
[verify]
```
标签——而非仅在修改摘要中标记。
保留差异输出中的来源标签：
```
[Federal Register]
```
、
```
[web search — verify]
```
、
```
[model knowledge — verify]
```
、
```
[user provided]
```
。从差异输出转换到重写内容时，请勿删除这些标签。

Scope discipline

范围约束

If a section of the policy isn't affected by the gap, leave it alone. A redraft that touches sections outside the gap looks like the AI opined on things it wasn't asked to opine on, and makes the review harder.

If you see a second gap while redrafting — a provision that's clearly out of step with the rule but wasn't in the original gap — don't silently fix it. Flag it in the reviewer note: "While redrafting for [GAP-ID], I noticed [other provision] appears to have a related issue with [requirement]. Not included in this redraft. Consider a follow-on gap."

若政策章节未受漏洞影响，请保持原样。修改漏洞无关章节会让AI显得越权，且增加审核难度。

若在重写过程中发现第二个漏洞——某项条款明显不符合法规要求，但未包含在原始漏洞中——请勿静默修复。在审核备注中标记：“在针对[GAP-ID]进行重写时，我注意到[其他条款]似乎存在与[要求]相关的问题。本重写内容未包含该问题的修复。建议后续补充漏洞记录。”

Step 4: Output — Policy Redraft Memo

步骤4：输出——政策重写备忘录

markdown

[WORK-PRODUCT HEADER — per plugin config ## Outputs — differs by role; see `## Who's using this`]

> **⚠️ Reviewer note**
> - **Sources:** [Research connector: CourtListener ✓ verified | not connected — cites from training knowledge, verify before relying]
> - **Read:** [sections of the policy reviewed; what wasn't read]
> - **Flagged for your judgment:** [N items marked `[review]` inline | none]
> - **Currency:** [rule status verified against [source], [date] | unverified — see banner above]
> - **Before relying:** confirm this is the current approved version of the policy; verify rule status and effective date; get the policy owner's review; follow your policy-change approval process; update the gap tracker only when applied and approved.

markdown

[工作成果标题 — 根据插件配置## Outputs — 因角色而异；请查看`## Who's using this`]

> **⚠️ 审核备注**
> - **来源：** [研究连接器：CourtListener ✓ 已验证 | 未连接 — 引用来自训练知识，使用前请验证]
> - **已审阅：** [已审阅的政策章节；未审阅的内容]
> - **需您判断的标记项：** [N项在行内标记为`[review]` | 无]
> - **时效性：** [法规状态已根据[来源]于[日期]验证 | 未验证 — 请查看上方提示栏]
> - 使用前注意事项：确认此为当前已批准的政策版本；验证法规状态和生效日期；获得政策所有者的审核；遵循政策变更审批流程；仅当修改被应用并批准后，才更新漏洞追踪器。

Policy Redraft: [Policy name]

政策重写：[政策名称]

Gap: [GAP-ID or short description] Regulation: [name, citation, effective date] Policy: [name, last-updated date] Status: PROPOSAL — not yet reviewed or approved

漏洞： [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： 提案 — 尚未审核或批准

Bottom line

核心要点

[One sentence: what the gap is. One sentence: what the redraft does. One sentence: what needs review.]

[一句话：漏洞内容。一句话：重写内容的作用。一句话：需审核的内容。]

Marked-up policy section(s)

带标记的政策章节

[The redlined text, with inline

[Change: ...]

comments. Only the affected sections.]

[带修订标记的文本，包含行内

[修改说明：...]

注释。仅包含受影响的章节。]

Change summary

修改摘要

#	Provision	Current	Proposed	Why	Verify
1	§2.1 PII definition	"…names, addresses, SSNs…"	"…names, addresses, SSNs, biometric identifiers…"	COPPA 2025 amendments expand PII to cover biometrics	[Federal Register]
2	§4.3 Retention period	"30 days"	"14 days"	New rule imposes 14-day cap	`[verify — model knowledge]`

序号	条款	当前内容	提案内容	原因	验证状态
1	§2.1 PII定义	"…姓名、地址、社保号…"	"…姓名、地址、社保号、生物识别标识符…"	COPPA 2025修正案将生物识别信息纳入PII范畴	[Federal Register]
2	§4.3 保留期限	"30天"	"14天"	新法规规定14天上限	`[verify — model knowledge]`

Before applying — checklist

应用前检查清单

Confirm this is the current approved version of the policy being redrafted.
Verify the rule status and effective date (Federal Register docket, or outside counsel).
Get the policy owner's review.
Follow your policy-change approval process.
Update the gap tracker when applied and approved — not before.

What next? Pick one and I'll help you build it out:

Apply and get sign-off — you review, circulate to the policy owner, walk it through your approval process. When approved, tell me and I'll mark the gap closed.
Get more info on [X] — if a specific change needs more grounding (a cite verified, a threshold checked, a jurisdiction question resolved), tell me which one and I'll dig in.
Escalate to [owner / GC] — if the redraft raises something above the policy-owner's authority, I'll draft a short escalation with the facts, the proposed change, and what decision is needed.
Watch and wait — if the rule's status is uncertain or the policy owner is unavailable, I'll add a revisit note to the gap tracker.
Something else — tell me what you'd do with it.

undefined

确认此为待重写政策的当前已批准版本。
验证法规状态和生效日期（联邦公报目录或外部法律顾问）。
获得政策所有者的审核。
遵循政策变更审批流程。
仅当修改被应用并批准后，才更新漏洞追踪器——切勿提前更新。

下一步操作？选择以下选项，我将协助您推进：

应用并获取签署 — 您进行审核，提交给政策所有者，完成审批流程。批准后请告知我，我会标记漏洞已解决。
获取[X]的更多信息 — 若某项修改需要更多依据（验证引用、检查阈值、解决管辖权问题），请告知具体项，我会深入调研。
升级至[所有者/总法律顾问] — 若重写内容涉及超出政策所有者权限的问题，我会起草一份简短的升级报告，包含事实、提案修改及所需决策。
观察等待 — 若法规状态不确定或政策所有者无法联系，我会在漏洞追踪器中添加回访备注。
其他操作 — 请告知您的需求。

undefined

Filename

文件名

The output file name makes clear it's a draft. Use:

[policy-name]-proposed-redraft-[YYYY-MM-DD].md

Not

[policy-name].md

. Not

[policy-name]-v2.md

. The word "proposed-redraft" and the date are load-bearing — they prevent the draft from being mistaken for the current version.

Write to the matter workspace if one is active; otherwise to the current working directory or a location the user names. Do not write to the policy library source directory.

输出文件名需明确标识为草稿。使用：

[policy-name]-proposed-redraft-[YYYY-MM-DD].md

不得使用

[policy-name].md

或

[policy-name]-v2.md

。“proposed-redraft”和日期是核心标识——可避免将草稿误认为当前版本。

若存在活跃事项工作区，则写入该工作区；否则写入当前工作目录或用户指定位置。切勿写入政策库源目录。

Config-dependent fallbacks

依赖配置的回退方案

This skill reads the policy library index and owners from

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/regulatory-legal/CLAUDE.md

. When a value it needs is empty or still

[PLACEHOLDER]

Policy owner missing: still produce the redraft. Note in the reviewer note: "No policy owner is set for [policy] in
```
## Policy library
```
. Assign one with
```
/regulatory-legal:cold-start-interview --redo
```
so the approval path is routable."
Policy library empty and the gap doesn't name a specific policy: stop and ask: "I need the current policy text to redraft. Paste the text of the affected policy, or point me at the file."

Say nothing about config when the values are populated.

本技能从

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/regulatory-legal/CLAUDE.md

读取政策库索引和所有者信息。当所需值为空或仍为

[PLACEHOLDER]

时：

缺少政策所有者： 仍生成重写内容。在审核备注中记录：
```
## Policy library
```
中未设置[政策]的所有者。请运行
```
/regulatory-legal:cold-start-interview --redo
```
分配所有者，以便明确审批路径。
政策库为空且漏洞未指定具体政策： 停止操作并询问：“我需要当前政策文本才能进行重写。请粘贴受影响政策的文本，或指向对应文件。”

当配置值已填充时，无需提及配置相关内容。

Interactions with other skills

与其他技能的交互

Upstream inputs come from
```
policy-diff
```
(per-requirement gap analysis) and
```
gap-surfacer
```
(the tracker). Carry their source tags and
```
[verify]
```
flags through.
Gap tracker state: this skill does NOT change the tracker. It doesn't mark the gap closed, doesn't mark it in-progress, doesn't touch
```
notified
```
. If you want a paper trail that a redraft exists, the policy owner or the user can update the gap entry with a resolution note when the redraft is applied and approved — see
```
/regulatory-legal:gaps --close
```
.
Severity floor: if the upstream gap is 🔴 or 🟠, the memo's Bottom line carries that severity. Silent demotion is a contradiction a reviewing lawyer cannot see. See CLAUDE.md
```
## Cross-skill severity floor
```
.

上游输入来自
```
policy-diff
```
（按要求进行漏洞分析）和
```
gap-surfacer
```
（漏洞追踪器）。保留其来源标签和
```
[verify]
```
标记。
漏洞追踪器状态： 本技能不会修改追踪器。不会标记漏洞已解决、进行中，也不会修改
```
notified
```
状态。若需要记录重写内容的存在，政策所有者或用户可在重写内容被应用并批准后，更新漏洞条目并添加解决备注——请查看
```
/regulatory-legal:gaps --close
```
。
严重程度下限： 若上游漏洞为🔴或🟠，备忘录核心要点需保留该严重程度。静默降低严重程度会导致审核律师无法察觉矛盾。请查看CLAUDE.md中的
```
## Cross-skill severity floor
```
。

Close with the next-steps decision tree

以下一步操作决策树收尾

Included in the output template above. Customize the options to what the redraft actually produced — if the rule status is unverified, option 2 (get more info) moves up; if the policy owner isn't set, option 3 (escalate) gets specific.

已包含在上述输出模板中。根据重写内容实际情况自定义选项——若法规状态未验证，选项2（获取更多信息）优先级提升；若未设置政策所有者，选项3（升级）需具体化。

What this skill does not do

本技能不执行的操作

Apply the redraft to the source policy. That's the policy owner's action.
Close the gap in the tracker. Gaps close when the redraft is applied and approved.
Rewrite the whole policy. Smallest-possible edit to close the gap.
Produce multi-policy redrafts. One gap, one policy, one memo. A
```
:package
```
command for multi-policy fan-out is a future skill.
Produce the "apply" workflow. An
```
:apply
```
command with an approval gate is a future skill.

将重写内容应用到源政策文档。此为政策所有者的职责。
在漏洞追踪器中标记漏洞已解决。只有当重写内容被应用且获得批准后，漏洞才算解决。
重写整个政策。仅进行最小化修改以填补漏洞。
生成多政策重写内容。一个漏洞对应一个政策、一份备忘录。多政策批量处理的
```
:package
```
命令为未来技能。
生成“应用”工作流。带审批 gate 的
```
:apply
```
命令为未来技能。