Claude-skill-registry Article Writing

Structure and style guidance for law review articles

install
source · Clone the upstream repo
git clone https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry
Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/skills/data/article-writing" ~/.claude/skills/majiayu000-claude-skill-registry-article-writing && rm -rf "$T"
manifest: skills/data/article-writing/SKILL.md
source content

Law Review Article Writing Skill

Domain: Legal academic article structure and style Version: 1.0.0 Last Updated: 2025-12-15

Overview

This skill provides guidance for structuring and writing law review articles, including traditional doctrinal pieces, empirical studies, and interdisciplinary scholarship.

Standard Article Structure

I. Introduction (5-10% of article)

Purpose: Hook the reader, state the thesis, roadmap the article.

Elements:

  1. Opening hook - Compelling case, statistic, or puzzle
  2. Problem statement - What issue does this article address?
  3. Thesis statement - What does this article argue?
  4. Contribution claim - Why does this matter? What's new?
  5. Roadmap - Brief preview of article structure

Example opening patterns:

  • Case study opening: "In Smith v. Jones, the court faced..."
  • Puzzle opening: "Legal scholars have long assumed X, but..."
  • Stakes opening: "Every year, thousands of defendants..."
  • Counter-intuitive opening: "Conventional wisdom holds that..."

II. Background/Context (15-20%)

Purpose: Give readers necessary context without rehashing basics.

Elements:

  • Legal doctrine overview (only what's needed)
  • Historical development (if relevant)
  • Current state of scholarship
  • Gap identification (what's missing?)

Calibration: Assume reader is smart lawyer unfamiliar with this specific area.

III. Core Argument (40-50%)

Purpose: Develop and support the thesis.

Structure options:

Linear argument:

A. First supporting claim
   1. Evidence/authority
   2. Analysis
B. Second supporting claim
   1. Evidence/authority
   2. Analysis
C. Third supporting claim
   ...

Problem-solution:

A. Problem detailed
B. Existing solutions critiqued
C. Proposed solution
D. Solution defended

Case study driven:

A. Case 1 analysis
B. Case 2 analysis
C. Pattern identification
D. Theoretical implications

IV. Counterarguments (10-15%)

Purpose: Acknowledge and respond to objections.

Best practices:

  • State opposing view fairly and strongly
  • Distinguish weak vs. strong objections
  • Provide substantive responses
  • Concede points where appropriate

V. Implications/Applications (10-15%)

Purpose: Show what follows from your argument.

Elements:

  • Doctrinal implications
  • Policy recommendations
  • Future research directions
  • Limitations acknowledgment

VI. Conclusion (5%)

Purpose: Synthesize and close.

Elements:

  • Restate thesis (fresh language)
  • Summarize key contributions
  • End with broader significance or call to action

Writing Style Guidelines

Voice and Tone

  • Authoritative but not arrogant - State claims confidently, acknowledge limitations
  • Precise - Legal writing demands exactness
  • Accessible - Avoid unnecessary jargon
  • Engaging - Vary sentence structure, use active voice

Common Style Rules

  1. Prefer active voice

    • Weak: "The statute was interpreted by the court..."
    • Strong: "The court interpreted the statute..."
  2. Avoid nominalizations

    • Weak: "The implementation of the policy..."
    • Strong: "Implementing the policy..."
  3. Be specific

    • Weak: "Courts have generally held..."
    • Strong: "The Second Circuit has consistently held..."
  4. Use strong verbs

    • Weak: "The defendant made an argument that..."
    • Strong: "The defendant argued that..."
  5. Eliminate throat-clearing

    • Cut: "It is important to note that..."
    • Cut: "It should be emphasized that..."
    • Cut: "It goes without saying that..."

Paragraph Structure

IRAC for analytical paragraphs:

  • Issue - What question does this paragraph address?
  • Rule - What legal principle applies?
  • Analysis - How does the rule apply to facts?
  • Conclusion - What follows?

Topic sentences:

  • Every paragraph needs a clear topic sentence
  • Topic sentence should advance the argument
  • Reader should understand paragraph's point from first sentence

Transition Strategies

Between sections:

  • End section with forward reference
  • Begin section with backward reference
  • Use explicit transition sentences

Between paragraphs:

  • Logical connectors (however, moreover, therefore)
  • Reference to previous paragraph's conclusion
  • Parallel structure

Footnote Density

Academic standard: Approximately 1 footnote per 2-3 sentences of text.

When to footnote:

  • Direct quotations (always)
  • Specific claims of fact
  • Legal rules and holdings
  • Others' arguments you're engaging
  • Supporting examples

When NOT to footnote:

  • Your own original analysis
  • General knowledge
  • Logical deductions from cited premises

Length Calibration

Article TypeWord CountFootnotes
Student Note15,000-25,000150-300
Standard Article20,000-35,000200-400
Major Piece30,000-50,000300-500
Essay/Commentary5,000-10,00050-100

Available Workflows

  • workflows/structure-argument.md
    - Develop article outline
  • workflows/integrate-sources.md
    - Weave sources into argument
  • workflows/peer-review-prep.md
    - Prepare for submission

Quality Checklist

Before completion, verify:

  • Thesis clearly stated in introduction
  • Each section advances the central argument
  • Counterarguments addressed fairly
  • Citations support claims made
  • Transitions smooth between sections
  • Conclusion synthesizes without mere repetition
  • No unsupported assertions
  • Voice consistent throughout

Legal scholarship persuades through rigorous argument and careful evidence.