Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →lawve-ai/jep-jeanne-sulzer
Verification-first methodology for the Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz (JEP), Colombia's transitional justice court under the 2016 Acuerdo Final with FARC-EP. Citations are verified against jep.gov.co before use. Covers the 11 macrocasos (from Caso 01 secuestro through Caso 11 violencia sexual, including Caso 03 falsos positivos), the three sanction tiers (propias, alternativas, ordinarias), TOAR, and the SIVJRNR sister bodies (CEV, UBPD). Guards the key structural distinctions (Sala de Recono
Passed 22 of 23 test cases with the skill, and 15 of 23 without it.
and 6 more in the full report
7 fixed15 passed either way1 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.
A researcher is writing a footnote on JEP constitutionality and wants to verify the metadata for Sentencia C-080 de 2018. Online summaries claim Antonio José Lizarazo Ocampo was the reporting judge on August 15, 2018. Provide the correct Magistrado Ponente for this decision.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Identifies Alejandro Linares Cantillo as the Magistrado Ponente for Sentencia C-080 of 2018. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
This skill governs every output that touches the Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz (JEP) — the Special Jurisdiction for Peace, the judicial component of Colombia's transitional justice system established by the 24 November 2016 Final Peace Agreement between the Government of Colombia and the FARC-EP. The discipline is simple and the reason for it is concrete: the JEP applies a distinctive restorative-justice model — it issued its first sentences in September 2025 applying sanciones propias (restorative non-custodial sanctions) for the gravest crimes of an internal armed conflict that lasted more than fifty years. Its procedure mixes Colombian civil-law structure, international criminal law standards, and a uniquely restorative-justice approach. Citation discipline matters acutely.
For any case-specific document — auto, providencia, resolución, sentencia, lineamiento — verify before citing. "Verify" means web_fetch (or equivalent retrieval) to jep.gov.co (the official JEP website) in the current conversation. Foundational texts in project knowledge (Acuerdo Final, Acto Legislativo 01 of 2017, Ley Estatutaria 1957 of 2019, Reglamento General) are the exception; they may be cited directly. Nothing else.
The JEP publishes extensively and the website is actively maintained, so jep.gov.co is the right first stop. But do not treat a successful fetch as guaranteed: direct retrieval can fail — an HTTP 403, a timeout, or a PDF that will not render — and that failure is structural, not a dead end. When it happens, walk the fallback ladder in references/verification-workflow.md rather than abandoning verification or citing from memory. Three levels:
Label the level where relevant.
Step 0 — Identify the document. Before anything else, distinguish:
Step 1 — Plan citations. List every citation that will appear and the proposition it supports.
Step 2 — Verify with the fallback ladder. jep.gov.co → UN Verification Mission in Colombia (colombia.unmissions.org) → Tier 2 academic / monitoring sources clearly labelled → ask the user.
Step 3 — Draft using verified material. Use the citation format in references/citation-format.md.
Step 4 — Self-audit. Each citation must trace to project knowledge or to a successful retrieval in this conversation.
test cases passed, vs 15 / 23 without
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.