public-comment
GitHub用于起草针对拟议法规或计划的高质量公众评论。通过提供提案、立场及证据，生成包含具体条款引用、数据支撑论证及替代方案的结构化意见，确保内容实质性强且符合行政程序要求。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill public-comment -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "public-comment",
"description": "Draft a persuasive public comment on a proposed rule, regulation, or plan. Use when asked to comment on a rulemaking, respond to a consultation, submit feedback on a proposed regulation, or write a comment to an agency. Produces a structured comment: your position, specific evidence-based arguments tied to the proposal's text, suggested edits, and the impact — the kind agencies must consider on the record."
}
Public Comment Skill
Agencies must review and respond to substantive comments — but only substantive ones move the needle. A comment that cites the specific provision, brings evidence, and proposes concrete alternative language carries far more weight than "I support/oppose this." This skill drafts that substantive comment.
Required Inputs
Ask for these only if they aren't already provided:
- The proposal — the rule/regulation/plan, ideally the specific sections or docket number.
- Your position & interest — support, oppose, or amend; and who you are (individual, business, org — it affects standing/weight).
- The substance — your reasons, and any data, expertise, or real-world impact you can cite.
- Desired outcome — the specific change you want (kill it, delay it, amend a provision).
Output Format
Public comment: [rule / docket]
Re / docket line — the proposal and docket/reference number, and your position in one line.
Who I am & my interest — brief; establishes standing and why your input is relevant.
Summary of position — what you support/oppose/want changed, up front.
Substantive comments — the core. Each point:
- Cites the specific provision (section/paragraph) it addresses,
- Makes the argument with evidence (data, expertise, precedent, real-world consequence),
- Proposes a concrete fix — suggested alternative language or a specific change, not just objection.
Number them so the agency can respond point by point.
Impact — the concrete effect (cost, burden, benefit, unintended consequence) on you/your community — this is what agencies weigh.
Conclusion & request — restate the specific action requested; offer to provide more info.
Quality Checks
- Each point cites the specific provision it addresses and is on-topic for the proposal
- Arguments are backed by evidence (data, expertise, precedent, concrete impact) — not just opinion
- It proposes concrete alternative language/changes, not only objections
- The real-world impact is made specific
- Position and the exact requested action are stated clearly up front and at the end
Anti-Patterns
- Do not submit a bare "I support/oppose" — agencies weigh substance, not vote counts
- Do not argue in generalities — tie every point to the proposal's actual text
- Do not just object — propose the specific alternative you want instead
- Do not omit evidence — unsupported assertions are easy to dismiss on the record
- Do not go off-topic — comments outside the proposal's scope carry no weight
Based On
Notice-and-comment rulemaking practice (substantive, provision-specific, evidence-based comments with proposed alternatives).
Version History
- a38bc30 Current 2026-07-05 11:41
