Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →lawve-ai/nuremberg-tokyo-jeanne-sulzer
Verification-first methodology for the post-WWII tribunals: the IMT at Nuremberg, the twelve Nuremberg Military Tribunals, and the IMTFE at Tokyo. Citations are verified against the official records (Blue/Green Series, Pritchard-Zaide) and the digital archives (Avalon, Harvard NTP, UVA IMTFE). Guards the four classic traps (IMT vs NMT; Nuremberg vs Tokyo; Charter article numbers; majority judgment vs separate opinions, e.g. the Pal dissent). Research aid, not legal advice. Part of the open-sourc
Passed 18 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 15 of 22 without it.
and 1 more in the full report
3 fixed15 passed either way4 still failing0 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 3 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
Identify the three individual defendants acquitted of all charges in the main International Military Tribunal judgment at Nuremberg.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Names Schacht, von Papen, and Fritzsche as the acquitted IMT defendants | Passed | Passed |
| Identifies 1946 as the year of the IMT Judgment | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
This skill governs every output that touches the three post-WWII military tribunals: the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg (IMT), the twelve subsequent United States Nuremberg Military Tribunals (NMT), and the International Military Tribunal for the Far East at Tokyo (IMTFE). The discipline is simple and the reason for it is concrete: these tribunals are the doctrinal matrix of modern international criminal law. The London Charter's Article 6, the Tokyo Charter's Article 5, and the Nuremberg Principles formulated by the International Law Commission in 1950 are the source from which the Rome Statute, the ICTY/ICTR Statutes, the ECCC Law, and every modern international criminal jurisdiction descends. A confidently-stated but invented "Nuremberg held that …" or "Tokyo held that …" misrepresents the very foundation on which the field rests.
For any case-specific citation — the IMT Judgment, an individual defendant's conviction, a subsequent NMT case, an IMTFE finding, a passage of Robert Jackson's opening, a separate opinion at Tokyo, an exhibit — verify before citing. "Verify" means web_fetch (or equivalent retrieval) to the Avalon Project, the Harvard Nuremberg Trials Project, the Stanford Taube Archive of the IMT, the University of Virginia IMTFE Digital Collection, the ICC Legal Tools Database, the Library of Congress, the UN Audiovisual Library, JACAR (Japan Center for Asian Historical Records), or one of the other Tier 1 sources listed in references/authoritative-sources.md. Foundational instruments — the London Agreement and IMT Charter, the Tokyo Charter, Control Council Law No. 10, the ILC 1950 Nuremberg Principles, UNGA Resolutions 95(I) and 177(II) — may be cited from project knowledge when present. Nothing else may be cited from memory.
Three levels:
Label the level where relevant. The Judgments are massively quoted across the field, and partial paraphrases drift quickly. See references/verification-workflow.md.
Step 0 — Identify the document. Before anything else, distinguish:
Step 1 — Plan citations. List the citations that will appear in the output and the proposition each supports.
Step 2 — Verify with the fallback ladder. For each citation, work down the ladder in references/verification-workflow.md.
Step 3 — Draft using verified material. Use the citation format in references/citation-format.md. Where verification is partial, say so.
Step 4 — Self-audit. Each citation must trace to project knowledge or to a successful retrieval in this conversation, with the verification level appropriate to the claim.
test cases passed, vs 15 / 22 without
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.