Legal / Humanities Writing: Discipline-Correct Drafting

Draft doctrinal and normative scholarship the way the field actually expects — not generic "academic prose." This is the law/humanities counterpart of /paper-write: it consumes the discipline profile's structure templates, citation rules, and the upstream grounding artifacts (STATUTE_CASE_MAP.json, COMPARATIVE_ANALYSIS.json), and produces either a full dissertation outline or drafted sections that are ready for /argument-stress-test and /citation-audit.

Context: $ARGUMENTS

Constants

• DRAFT files written into the project / paper directory (e.g. main.tex, chapters/*.tex, or .md if the project is markdown-based)
• OUTLINE_DOC: DISSERTATION_OUTLINE.md (outline mode)
• Discipline config comes from PRISM_PROFILE.md; fall back to law defaults if absent.

When to Use

• After /statute-case-mapper (and optionally /comparative-law) have grounded the argument — draft from the map, not from memory
• To produce a dissertation outline before any drafting
• To draft or revise a specific section/chapter
• Before /argument-stress-test, which then audits what you wrote

Step 0: Load discipline config and upstream artifacts

1. Read PRISM_PROFILE.md. Extract: Paper Structure templates, Citation Style, Review Dimensions (the rubric you are writing to), and Discipline-Specific Rules.
2. Read any upstream artifacts present: STATUTE_CASE_MAP.json (authorities per claim), COMPARATIVE_ANALYSIS.json (functional comparison + transplant screen), ARGUMENT_AUDIT.json (prior stress-test flags to fix while drafting).
3. Pick the structure template that matches the work:
   • law: 法教义学论文 / 法经济学论文 / 比较法论文 / (sports-law: 体育法教义学·政策 / 体育法经济学)
   • humanities: 释义/分析论文 / 历史研究论文
   • dissertation: use the profile's dissertation outline shape.

Mode A: Dissertation outline (outline)

Produce DISSERTATION_OUTLINE.md:

• Title + one-paragraph thesis (主线论点) — what is claimed and why it matters.
• Per chapter: heading, the claim that chapter establishes, the method (教义学/比较/法经济学/释义/史学), the key authorities/sources it will rest on (pulled from STATUTE_CASE_MAP.json where available), and the page budget from the profile template.
• An explicit 释义论 vs 立法论 split for law work: which chapters analyze current law (lege lata / 解释论) and which propose reform (lege ferenda / 立法论). Keep them from bleeding into each other.
• A dependency note: which chapters must be grounded (/statute-case-mapper) or compared (/comparative-law) before drafting.

Mode B: Draft a section / chapter

1. Write to the rubric. The profile's Review Dimensions are the target — for law, Doctrinal Rigor (25%) and Argument Quality (25%) dominate, so the prose must lead with authority and reasoning, not throat-clearing.
2. Draft from the map, cite as you go. Every normative sentence pulls its authority from STATUTE_CASE_MAP.json with a proper pin-cite. Do not assert law you have not grounded — if the map says ungrounded, flag it inline as 〔待补权威〕 rather than inventing a citation.
3. Citation format from the profile. Chinese law → footnotes (脚注) per shared-references/citation-cn-footnote.md; US → Bluebook; UK/EU → OSCOLA; humanities → Chicago/MLA. Substantive footnotes are expected in law/humanities — use them for qualifications and scholarly dialogue, not just citations.
4. Honor the discipline rules: positive-law-first; 解释论/立法论 separation; systematic (not cherry-picked) case treatment; functional (not tourist) comparison; China-facing conclusion; transparent normative commitments. For humanities: interpretation over information, close reading as evidence, engage the tradition, avoid scientism and presentism.
5. Leave audit hooks. Tag each load-bearing claim so /argument-stress-test and /citation-audit can find them; do not bury claims in prose mush.

Step N: Hand off, don't self-certify

After drafting, print what was written and the recommended next gates:

✍️ Legal Writing Complete  (discipline: sports-law, mode: draft §3 现行法分析)

  Drafted:        chapters/03_positive_law.tex  (~3.5 pages)
  Citations:      14 footnotes (脚注, GB/T 7714)
  Grounded from:  STATUTE_CASE_MAP.json (12 authorities)
  ⚠️ 待补权威:    1 claim flagged 〔待补权威〕 (C7 — 无对应判例)

  Next gates:
    /argument-stress-test   → audit doctrinal soundness
    /citation-audit         → verify the 14 footnotes (L3 claim-level)

The skill never declares its own draft submission-ready. Soundness is decided by /argument-stress-test; citation correctness by /citation-audit. Writing, grounding, and judging stay separate (same separation as the STEM pipeline).

Local Wiki Defaults

If the profile declares an external wiki / research-wiki/ exists, pull durable analyses and source summaries from wiki/memos/ and wiki/sources/ while drafting, and write new durable prose back there. Never modify raw/.

Key Rules

• Draft from grounding, not memory. No normative claim without a mapped authority or an explicit 〔待补权威〕 flag. Inventing citations is the cardinal sin.
• Write to the profile's rubric. Doctrinal rigor and argument quality are the heaviest weights in law — earn them, don't pad with background.
• 解释论 ≠ 立法论. Never let "what the law is" and "what it should be" blur in the same paragraph; the profile flags this explicitly.
• Citation style is not optional. Match the venue's format exactly via citation-cn-footnote.md or the relevant style.
• Hand off to the gates. Drafting does not certify; /argument-stress-test and /citation-audit do.