jurisrank
GitHub用于分析阿根廷最高法院判例引用网络，通过JurisRank算法衡量司法权威、追踪教义演变及检测宪法漂移。适用于法律研究、诉状选案、对抗性尽职调查及判例影响力评估。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills --skill jurisrank -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "jurisrank",
"effort": "medium",
"command": "\/jurisrank <topic-or-case>",
"context": "inline",
"metadata": {
"author": "Adrián Lerer",
"license": "cc-by-4.0",
"version": "2026-05-13"
},
"description": "Argentine Supreme Court citation network analysis using JurisRank — a peer-reviewed PageRank algorithm with temporal decay for measuring jurisprudential authority. Ranks precedents by citation influence, traces doctrinal evolution, and detects constitutional drift. Published methodology: JCLLT (DOI: 10.47852\/bonviewJCLLT62027951). Activate with: which cases to cite, rank precedents, case authority, doctrinal evolution, Argentine Supreme Court, CSJN jurisprudence, citation network, leading case, legal research Argentina.\n",
"when_to_use": "When you need to identify the most authoritative Argentine case law on a topic, rank competing precedents by citation influence, trace how doctrine evolved in the Argentine Supreme Court (CSJN) or federal courts, or verify whether a precedent cited by opposing counsel is genuinely influential or an outlier.\n",
"allowed-tools": "Read, Write, WebFetch, Bash"
}
JurisRank — Argentine Jurisprudential Authority Analysis
What JurisRank Is
JurisRank is a computational tool for measuring the authority of Argentine court decisions through citation network analysis. Its methodology is peer-reviewed and published in the Journal of Computational Law and Legal Technology:
Lerer, I.A. (2026). "Computational Detection of Constitutional Drift: Network Analysis and Semantic Measurement of Argentine Supreme Court Jurisprudence (1922–2025)." Journal of Computational Law and Legal Technology. DOI: 10.47852/bonviewJCLLT62027951
Academic validation: κ = 0.83 inter-coder reliability · k-fold cross- validation (k=5) · 73.2% mean accuracy · Monte Carlo simulations (n=1,000).
License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Three Algorithms
| Algorithm | Purpose |
|---|---|
| JurisRank | PageRank + temporal decay — recent citations weighted higher |
| RootFinder | Ancestral Borrowing Analysis Network — traces doctrinal genealogy |
| Legal-Memespace | Principal Component Analysis — maps multidimensional doctrine |
Coverage
- Argentine Supreme Court (CSJN) — 1922 to present
- National and federal courts of appeals (Cámaras nacionales y federales)
- Selected provincial supreme courts
- Relevant international precedents cited by Argentine courts
Authority Score Interpretation
| Score | Meaning | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|
| > 0.8 | Leading case — highest citation authority | Cite first, with score |
| 0.6–0.8 | Widely cited — strong precedential weight | Cite with score |
| 0.4–0.6 | Relevant — moderate authority | Cite with note |
| < 0.4 | Limited authority — outlier or isolated | Orientation only |
| Not found | No network presence detected | Declare absence of precedent |
Use Cases
1. Selecting case law for briefs and memos
When multiple cases address the same issue, JurisRank identifies which carry the most authority in the citation network → cite the most influential first, in ranked order.
2. Doctrinal evolution analysis
Trace how CSJN or appellate court doctrine evolved on a specific topic. Identify whether the most recent decision continues or breaks from prior doctrine.
3. Adversarial jurisprudential due diligence
Verify whether precedents cited by opposing counsel are genuinely authoritative or low-influence outliers.
4. Constitutional drift detection
Detect shifts in citation patterns that signal doctrinal erosion or realignment — original application from the JCLLT paper.
Workflow
1. Identify topic or specific cases to analyze
2. Query JurisRank API:
GET https://api.jurisrank.com/v1/cases?query=<topic>
POST https://api.jurisrank.com/v1/analyze-authority {"case_id": "..."}
3. Interpret Authority Score and citation network position
4. Apply RootFinder for genealogy if doctrinal evolution is needed
5. Produce ranked analysis with citation recommendations
Anti-Hallucination Rules
JurisRank implements groundedness verification per the Stanford Legal AI Benchmark (Magesh et al., 2024):
Before including any case in the analysis:
- Confirm Authority Score > 0.0 (case exists in the network)
- Verify jurisdiction matches the forum of the matter
- Check temporal decay: has a more-cited posterior decision superseded it?
- Verify the case actually supports the proposition — not just addresses the topic
Never cite a case not found in the JurisRank network without explicitly declaring it as unverified.
Output Format
JURISRANK ANALYSIS — [Topic]
Date: [date] | Tool: JurisRank (Lerer, 2026, JCLLT)
## RANKED PRECEDENTS BY AUTHORITY
| Case | Court | Year | Authority Score | Network Position |
|------|-------|------|----------------|-----------------|
| ... | CSJN | ... | 0.92 | Leading case |
## DOCTRINAL EVOLUTION
[Timeline: how doctrine developed]
## CITATION NETWORK
[Which cases cite each other; doctrinal clusters]
## RECOMMENDATION
[Which cases to cite · in what order · why]
About the Author
Ignacio Adrián Lerer is an Argentine attorney and independent researcher. JurisRank was developed as part of research on computational legal analysis published in peer-reviewed journals. The tool is registered with Argentina's DNDA (copyright registry) and has a patent application pending at INPI Argentina.
Contact: justitia.com.ar
Version History
- 7f58aaf Current 2026-07-05 11:50
