Smithery is now a part of Arcade.dev! Read more in our announcement here
Extracts the legal citations from an English-language text by pattern and rule, with no LLM in the extraction step, so the same text yields the same list every run - ECLI (CJEU and national), EU act...
You can only verify what you first find. Grounding a citation checks whether it exists in the source - but it runs on a list that someone has to assemble first. This skill is that front-end: it walks the text and lists every authority, so none slips past verification. A missed citation is an unverified one.
Extraction is mechanical (patterns + rules, not an LLM) on purpose - a model asked to find citations might miss one or invent one. Local, jurisdiction-neutral, EU-aware.
ECLI:EU:C:2020:559 (Court of Justice), ECLI:EU:T:2019:... (General Court).ECLI:NL:HR:2021:..., ECLI:DE:BGH:..., ECLI:PL:SN:....Party v Party; CJEU case numbers C-123/20, C-123/20 P (appeal),
joined cases C-123/20 and C-124/20; General Court T-456/19.32016R0679, 32019L0790 (sector + year + type + number).Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Directive 2019/790, Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.OJ L 119, OJ C 326.Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, Art. 263 TFEU, section 12, § 3(2).Short reference forms carry different resolution rules - they cannot all be sent to the nearest antecedent:
ibid. / id. / loc. cit. - the immediately preceding authority.supra / op. cit. - often carry a pointer that overrides proximity: an author, a title
fragment, or a note number ("Kranenborg, op. cit., p. 12"; "supra note 14"). Resolve by the pointer
first; fall back to proximity only when the reference is bare.the cited judgment, the above-cited) - match by described attributes (court,
party, subject), not position alone.Where more than one antecedent matches, or none does, mark the reference unresolved - manual review instead of guessing: a wrong merge silently fuses two distinct authorities into one. Count each resolved reference as the same citation as its antecedent, but keep where it occurs.
CITATIONS FOUND (n):
| # | Type | Citation (normalised) | Occurrences (offset/page) | Antecedent (if short ref) |
| 1 | EU case law | C-311/18 (Schrems II) | p.3, p.7 (ibid.) | - |
| 2 | EU legislation | Regulation (EU) 2016/679 | p.2 | - |
| 3 | provision | Article 5(1)(a) GDPR | p.4 | - |
TO VERIFY: pass the "Citation" column to grounding; EU sources to eu-sparql-search.
The extraction -> aggregation -> annotation architecture is based on eyecite (Free Law Project), BSD-2-Clause. US reporter regexes dropped; ECLI, CELEX/OJ and EU-citation patterns and the antecedent rules are MateMatic's own. MateMatic interpretation, not the position of any bar or regulator.
These rules apply to every skill in this plugin, including where the skill itself is silent. They are copied into each skill, so they hold whether you install the whole plugin or a single skill.
If an error would pass without being stopped by layers 1-5, the fault is in the skill. Fix the tool, do not add a note. "This is not legal advice" stops no error and transfers no responsibility.
(GDPR Art. 6), (Case C-311/18, CJEU).[check on EUR-Lex].The tag sits next to the line it concerns. A case number that exists is not enough - check the content.
Nothing is sent, filed, signed or published before a qualified person checks and approves it. A skill output is a draft, not a finished document.
The verification foundation is jurisdiction-neutral - the method, not the substance of any one legal system. It connects to no external source (no MCP connectors) and makes no outbound calls of its own; what you type still goes to your configured model (see https://github.com/matematicsolutions/awesome-matematic-skills-en/blob/main/TRUST.md). Substance comes from separate plugins (eu-law-sources). Deep national law (e.g. Polish case law) lives in the Polish marketplace, by design.
