This skill should be used when the user asks to "cite a case", "format a citation", "check Bluebook format", "cite a statute", "use id...
What this skill carries β grep references/ for any subject the names below miss:
!d=${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}; command -v skill-toc >/dev/null 2>&1 && exec skill-toc "$d"; s=$HOME/.claude/skills/plugin-utils/bin/skill-toc; [ -x "$s" ] && exec "$s" "$d"; echo "(skill-toc unavailable: references and scripts are NOT listed here β install the plugin-utils plugin, or start a new session so its bin/ reaches PATH)"
Citation formatting for law reviews and legal scholarship per The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (21st ed. 2020).
Announce: "Iβm using the bluebook skill for citation formatting."
Invoke this skill for:
For legal writing style: Use /writing-legal skill (Volokh)
For general writing: Use /writing skill (Strunk & White)
To RENDER these rules in a Typst manuscript: this skill states the rules; it does
not implement them. docx-typst carries the implementation β assets/bluebook.typ is a
#show cite: rule supplying the three things typst's built-in bibliography cannot
(supra note N, small-caps reporters, shortjournal β container-title-short), because
hayagriva is statically linked into the typst binary and renders none of them. Reach for
it whenever a Typst document needs the short forms in references/short-forms.md to
renumber themselves rather than be typed by hand.
If you havenβt verified EVERY element of a citation, DO NOT write it.
Before writing ANY citation:
Guessing reporter volumes or page numbers is NOT HELPFUL β the user publishes with wrong citations that fail verification. Period.
Id., supra, and hereinafter REQUIRE a preceding full citation.
Before using ANY short form:
Using id. after intervening citations creates ambiguity. Delete and cite in full.
Law review citations use footnote format (Rule 1). Court documents use text format (Bluepages).
FOOTNOTE (law reviews): Smith v. Jones, 500 U.S. 1, 5 (1991).
TEXT (court documents): Smith v. Jones, 500 U.S. 1, 5 (1991)
FOOTNOTE (statutes): 18 U.S.C. Β§ 1001 (2018).
TEXT (statutes): 18 U.S.C. Β§ 1001 (2018)
If writing for a law review and using text format conventions, DELETE and reformat.
Before writing ANY citation:
1. IDENTIFY β What type of source? (case, statute, article, book)
2. LOCATE β Find the correct rule in Bluebook
3. VERIFY β Confirm ALL elements (volume, page, court, year)
4. FORMAT β Apply correct typeface and punctuation
5. CHECK β Does this match examples in the rule?
6. WRITE β Only after steps 1-5
Skipping any step produces unreliable citations.
Full citation:
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 495 (1954).
Short form (same footnote or five footnotes with no intervening):
Id. at 496.
Short form (different footnote, no intervening):
Brown, 347 U.S. at 497.
Short form (intervening citations):
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. at 498.
Full citation:
42 U.S.C. Β§ 1983 (2018).
Multiple sections:
42 U.S.C. Β§Β§ 1983-1985 (2018).
Short form:
Β§ 1983 or id. Β§ 1984
Full citation:
Cass R. Sunstein, *On the Expressive Function of Law*, 144 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2021, 2030 (1996).
Short form:
Sunstein, supra note 12, at 2035.
Full citation:
Richard A. Posner, Economic Analysis of Law 45 (9th ed. 2014).
Short form:
Posner, supra note 5, at 52.
| Source Type | Law Review Format |
|---|---|
| Case names | Italics: Brown v. Board |
| Book titles | Small caps: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW |
| Article titles | Italics: On the Expressive Function |
| Journal names | Small caps: U. PA. L. REV. |
| Periodical names (non-consecutively paginated) | Italics: N.Y. Times |
| Statutes | Roman: 42 U.S.C. Β§ 1983 |
| Signal | Meaning | Use When |
|---|---|---|
| [no signal] | Direct support | Source directly states proposition |
| See | Implicit support | Source supports but doesnβt directly state |
| See, e.g., | One of several | Multiple sources support; citing representative |
| Cf. | Analogous support | Source supports by analogy |
| Compare ... with | Comparison | Sources illustrate through contrast |
| See generally | Background | Source provides helpful background |
| But see | Contradiction | Source contradicts proposition |
| Contra | Direct contradiction | Source directly contradicts |
Within a single citation sentence, signals appear in this order:
For detailed rules, consult:
references/cases.md - Complete case citation rules (R. 10)references/statutes.md - Statutory and regulatory citations (R. 12-14)references/secondary-sources.md - Books, articles, treatises (R. 15-17)references/short-forms.md - Id., supra, hereinafter rules (R. 4)references/quotations.md - Block quotes, alterations, ellipses (R. 5)references/signals-parentheticals.md - Signals, parentheticals, order (R. 1)references/audit-patterns.md - Citation audit patterns and validationreferences/abbreviations.md - Bluebook abbreviation tablesreferences/editions-21-to-22.md - What changed in the 22nd edition, from the publisher's preface plus rule-by-rule checksEvery reference file below is checked against the rule text. editions-21-to-22.md is
not in the table because it is the SOURCE that verification was done against, not a subject
of it.
| file | rules | status |
|---|---|---|
quotations.md |
5 | verified vs 21e scan AND 22e; 6 errors corrected |
signals-parentheticals.md |
1 | rebuilt from 22e; carries the new contrast signal |
short-forms.md |
4 | rebuilt from 22e |
cases.md |
10 | rebuilt from 22e |
statutes.md |
12 (13-14 NOT in corpus) | rebuilt from 22e; 13-14 flagged in place |
secondary-sources.md |
15, 16, 17 | rebuilt from 22e |
abbreviations.md |
10.2.2, 15.1(e), 16.1, T6 | rebuilt from 22e; T6 reproduced from the capture, table gaps flagged in place |
audit-patterns.md |
cross-cutting (1, 4, 10, 12, 15-18, T6) | rebuilt from 22e; every check names its rule, untraceable checks marked in place |
Five were then adversarially re-verified by separate agents against the same corpus, with
instructions to find errors rather than agree: signals-parentheticals.md and short-forms.md
came back with zero contradictions (every imperative traced to a governing sentence);
cases.md, statutes.md and secondary-sources.md each had defects, all now corrected.
quotations.md, abbreviations.md and audit-patterns.md had no second pass. Reports:
scratch/bb22/verify/.
All eight were checked against subsection pages extracted verbatim from the official Bluebook
Online 22nd edition; page cites in them are 22e pages. Claims the corpus did not cover are
marked UNVERIFIED in place rather than left looking checked. Per-file reports:
scratch/bb22/reports/. Rule 5 verdicts: scratch/bluebook-verify/REPORT.md.
What is still unchecked, and why. "Rebuilt from 22e" means every claim traces to the extracted corpus or is marked in place β it does not mean the whole rule surface was available. These gaps are real and are flagged inside the files rather than papered over:
| gap | state of the capture | consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Table T10 (geographical terms) | captured in full β T10.1 (22e pp. 340-42), T10.2 and T10.3 as separate subtable pages | its values may be stated |
| Table T13 (institutional names in periodical titles, 22e pp. 346-48) | captured in full β the earlier empty capture used a wrong slug (t13-institutional-names-... rather than t13-periodicals) |
its values may be stated |
| Tables T1, T7, T11, T12 and the rest | never fetched | cross-references to them are reported; their contents are not |
| Rules 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 19 | never fetched | checks resting on them are marked, not asserted. Rules 3, 5, 20, 21 and 23 have since been extracted |
Nothing from these gaps has been filled from training knowledge. A claim depending on one is either absent or carries a marker within a line of itself.
Best source: the official Bluebook Online, 22nd edition. UVA Law provides institutional access and the browser on CDP 9222 is already signed in. This is live publisher text β no OCR, no auth expiry, no retrieval tricks β and it is the source of record.
https://www.legalbluebook.com/bluebook/v22/rules/<n>-<slug>
https://www.legalbluebook.com/bluebook/v22/rules/<n>-<slug>/<n>-<m>-<slug>
e.g. /bluebook/v22/rules/5-quotations/5-2-alterations-and-quotations-within-quotations
Swap v22 for v21 to read the 21st edition; the site's own dropdown does the same. Drive it
with the browser-automation skill (Linux β mcp__chrome-devtools__* on 9222). If that MCP
server is not connected this session, raw CDP over http://127.0.0.1:9222/json/list works β and
open a new tab rather than navigating the user's.
EDITION MATTERS, IN TWO WAYS. The 22nd is now live and is the default.
references/editions-21-to-22.md is the guide β the publisher's preface (which names changes
in rules 1.2, 10.8.3, 12.4(f), 14.4, 15.1(d), 15.8, 18, 20.2.4, new 22 and 23, and tables T1.3,
T1.5, T2, T6, T10) plus the rule-by-rule differences verified here. Read it before trusting
anything in this skill against a 22e manuscript. Three things that bite immediately:
Pinpoint holds the full 21st edition β use it. A complete 394-page scan is in the Bluebook
collection (b7425c3f3368f9c9), OCR'd by Google, searchable to the page. This is the authoritative
lookup for any rule in this skill, and it is what references/quotations.md was finally verified
against.
pinpoint search Bluebook "<terms>" --pages --order density --limit 60
pinpoint generate ask Bluebook "<question>" # locates fast; do NOT quote its paraphrase
Four things learned the hard way, all of which cost a pass:
--order density, not the default. Document order means a bounded run stops early β Rule 5
sits at scan pp. 103-108 and a default-ordered run never reached past p. 71.awk.--no-dedupe when a page you know exists will not come back. Rule 1.5(b) at p. 86 returned
nothing across four term sets at limits up to 120; --no-dedupe --limit 200 returned it in full.--pages, never from generate ask. It locates well and paraphrases
confidently β it produced a fluent synthesis of a capitalization test that no line in the book
supports.Auth expires within the hour (API error 7 (PermissionDenied)); pinpoint auth re-lifts the
session from the CDP browser. Re-auth and retry β do not read an auth failure as "the rule is not
in the book."
The notebook (f70a9976-b443-43d5-b5fd-43ff86b2b700) holds a 53-page excerpt, not the book.
Verified 2026-08-23: the only full rule text is Rule 1 and 1.1-1.4 (pp. 51, 53) plus the Quick
Reference tables. Everything else is cover scans and cropped strips of the printed book's thumb
tabs β so "rule 10", "rule 12" appear as tab labels with nothing behind them, and a model asked
what the PDF contains will read those tabs and name rules it cannot quote. It did exactly that
before retracting under stricter questioning. It cannot answer on Rule 5 at all.
Refuse its web-research offer. On a rule it does not hold it replies "Would you like me to perform some web research?" β observed three times. Accepting turns a web search into something formatted as a source-grounded answer, which is how an unverified reference file gets written by an author who believes they consulted the book.
Prefer Pinpoint above. Reach for the notebook only for Rule 1 or the Quick Reference tables:
When to query the notebook:
Load the specific reference when:
Use with /writing-legal for complete legal scholarship workflow:
/bluebook formats citations correctly/writing-legal ensures argument structure and evidence handling/ai-anti-patterns catches AI writing indicators before submissionWhen to delete and restart:
How to restart:
Old: See Smith v. Jones, 500 U.S. at 15. Id. at 20. [intervening cite] Id. at 25.
New: See Smith v. Jones, 500 U.S. at 15. Id. at 20. [intervening cite] Smith, 500 U.S. at 25.
The third cite cannot use id. after an intervening citation.