Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →lawve-ai/eccc-jeanne-sulzer
Verification-first methodology for the ECCC (Khmer Rouge Tribunal). Every citation is verified against eccc.gov.kh, the ECCC archive or legal-tools.org. Covers Case File numbering, the 001/002/002-01/002-02 structure, the genocide findings against the Cham and the Vietnamese, and the Internal Rules revision discipline. Research aid, not legal advice. Part of the open-source "Skills for International Justice" library — methodology: github.com/jeannesulzer/international-criminal-tribunals-skills
Passed 16 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 9 of 22 without it.
and 4 more in the full report
7 fixed9 passed either way6 still failing0 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 7 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
I am looking at a filing from the Co-Prosecutors containing an Introductory Submission. What single letter prefix should I expect at the start of its document number?
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Identifies the letter prefix A. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
This skill governs every output that touches the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. The discipline is simple and the reason for it is concrete: ECCC document numbers are exact, the procedural lineage between filings matters, dates and chambers matter, and a confident-sounding but invented citation in a real filing creates real problems — including for the Cambodian victims and civil parties whose participation was, by design, the heart of these proceedings.
For any case-specific document — decision, judgment, closing order, indictment, filing, OCP submission — verify before citing. "Verify" means web_fetch (or equivalent retrieval) to eccc.gov.kh or legal-tools.org in the current conversation. Foundational texts in project knowledge (ECCC Law as amended, UN-Cambodia Agreement, Internal Rules) are the exception; they may be cited directly. Nothing else.
In practice, web_fetch to eccc.gov.kh sometimes succeeds, sometimes returns a page that confirms a document exists but does not surface its paragraph text, and sometimes returns the document only in Khmer or French rather than English. Honest outputs reflect this. Three levels:
Label the level when relevant. Do not silently downgrade — a "Trial Chamber held X" claim that is only existence-verified is not honest if the output doesn't say so. See references/verification-workflow.md.
Step 0 — Identify the document(s). Before anything else, read what is actually in front of you. If the user provides a file, open it and confirm its case, document number, date, chamber. If the user references a document by name ("the Duch appeal judgment", "the Case 002/02 trial judgment"), confirm which document they mean. ECCC severance and renumbering make this especially important: a citation to "the Case 002 trial judgment" is ambiguous between 002/01 and 002/02. Identity errors propagate; the cost of catching them at Step 0 is one read.
Step 1 — Plan citations. List every citation that will appear in the output. For each, note the document, the proposition it will support, and the source to verify against.
Step 2 — Verify, with the fallback ladder. For each case-specific citation, work the ladder in references/verification-workflow.md: eccc.gov.kh → legal-tools.org → cambodia.ohchr.org → search snippet from a Tier 1 domain → academic/Court-record secondary → ask the user for a URL. Capture document number, date, chamber, title, and paragraph numbers. Read the cited passage and confirm it supports the proposition.
Step 3 — Draft using verified material. Use the citation format in references/citation-format.md. Where verification is partial, say so in the output.
Step 4 — Self-audit. Each citation must trace to project knowledge (foundational text) or a successful retrieval in this conversation, with verification level appropriate to the claim. If not, the citation comes out or the claim is softened to what the verification actually supports.
If not in project knowledge, retrieve from eccc.gov.kh/en/about/legal-framework before citing. For the Internal Rules, the revision number matters: a 2010 decision cites the Internal Rules then in force (likely Rev. 5 or 6), not the current revision. Cross-check which revision was in force at the time of the cited decision. See references/foundational-texts.md.
test cases passed, vs 9 / 22 without
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.