dsh-lawcite-adapter

dsh-lawcite-adapter — Statute citation and legal document element check

English · 简体中文 · Español · Português · हिन्दी

dsh-lawcite-adapter reads one statute-citation inventory — the document header plus one row per citation — and checks that inventory's own verifiability and document elements: that each citation states its law and article number, that the article number follows the Chinese form, that a direct quotation has been transcribed into the quotation column, that the power status comes from your own vocabulary, that the citation states where it is used and what it argues, that the document header names its title and type, that citation numbers are not repeated, and that no unreplaced placeholder survives in the quotation column. It does not verify that a statute exists, that it is currently in force, that it has not been amended or repealed, or that it applies to the case.

Install

dsh plugin --profile <name> add dsh-lawcite-adapter
dsh --profile <name> --dump-config | grep 'dsh-lawcite-adapter'

What it looks like

*Workflow overview: call → plugin → result. The examples below use the real command surface.*

What it answers

Examples

The table below is the example set: the first row is the detailed walkthrough, the remaining rows are short cases.

Detailed output

Tool lawcite_adapter

Input

~~~json {"documentTitle":"某某买卖合同纠纷起诉状","documentType":"民事起诉状","rows":[{"法律法规名称":"","条号":"","引用原文":"当事人一方不履行合同义务或者履行合同义务不符合约定的，应当承担继续履行、采取补救措施或者赔偿损失等违约责任。"}]} ~~~

Output

~~~json { "id": "dsh-lawcite-adapter.LC-001.de09b5a6", "ruleId": "LC-001", "severity": "info", "locator": { "row": 1, "field": "lawName" }, "found": "第 1 行 lawName、articleNo 都为空", "expected": "lawName、articleNo 至少应填写一项" } ~~~

*Observed from dsh-lawcite-adapter/tests/fixtures/LC-001/LC-001-unsafe.json*

You ask · What it answers A citation row carries an article number but the law name is blank. Is that reported? · Yes. LC-001 requires the law name and the article number (lawName, articleNo) on every row and reports the row that leaves either one blank. It checks that they are written, not that the statute or the article exists: it holds no statute database and does not query one. The article number is written 第 577 条, or 第12条第3款. Will it pass? · LC-002 matches articleNo against ^第[〇零一二三四五六七八九十百千0-9]+条(之[一二三四五六七八九十]+)?$, so the spaced form 第 577 条 and the mixed form 第12条第3款 are both reported. It checks the form of the number only, nothing about whether the article exists; a paragraph or item number belongs in its own column, so 第12条 goes in articleNo. The pattern is adjustable to your house style. One row's quotation column is empty and another still reads 【待补充】. Are both caught? · Yes, by two rules. LC-003 requires quotedText to be transcribed on every row; LC-008 reports the row whose quotedText still contains a template term (【, 】, {{, }}, XXX, xxx, 待填, 待补充, TBD, todo, 示例). Neither compares the text with the statute: LC-003 checks that a quotation is present, LC-008 only that no placeholder survives. 「略」 is deliberately absent from the terms, so ……（略） is a normal abridgement and passes. The report shows LC-004 as skipped instead of passing. Why? · Because LC-004's values list ships empty, meaning the power-status vocabulary is not configured, so the rule reports itself in skipped rather than passing silently. Fill values with your own vocabulary (for example 现行有效, 已修订, 已废止) and LC-004 then checks that effectiveStatus is on that list. It checks membership in your list, not whether the recorded status matches the facts. The rows name the law and quote it, but say nothing about where the citation is used or what it argues, and the header gives no document type. Is that reported? · Yes. LC-005 requires usage and purpose on every citation row and reports a row that leaves both blank; it does not judge whether the citation really supports that argument. LC-006 requires the header to declare documentTitle and documentType, and does not judge whether the type was chosen correctly. The same article is cited in two sections and both rows carry citation number 3. Is that a finding? · Yes. LC-007 reports a citationNo that repeats inside the inventory, because a repeated number stops the footnotes from locating each citation. Citing the same provision in several sections is normal: give each citation its own number. The rule does not judge whether citing the same provision twice is appropriate.

Standards it follows

Document · Number · Cited by rules 本机构法律文书审查口径（本机构配置）—— 原挂《中华人民共和国立法法》，已核实其第六十五条为立法技术条款 · 无统一标准（本条依据为本机构配置的引用管理口径）—— ⚠️ 《立法法》2023 年第二次修正文本已核实，本条不引用该法 · LC-001 本机构法律文书审查口径（本机构配置）—— 原挂《党政机关公文格式》GB/T 9704—2012，已核实为版式标准 · GB/T 9704—2012（本次未取得条文） · LC-002, LC-003, LC-005, LC-006, LC-007, LC-008 本机构法律文书审查办法（本机构配置） · 无统一标准（本条依据为本机构配置的效力口径） · LC-004

Boundary: this plugin checks a 法条引用清单 for verifiability and document elements — that each citation names its law and article, that the article number follows the Chinese form, that a direct quotation is transcribed, that the power status comes from your vocabulary, that the citation states where it is used and what it argues, that the document names its title and type, that citation numbers are unique, and that no placeholder survives. It does not verify that a statute exists, that it is currently in force, that it has not been amended or repealed, or that it applies to the case.

### ⚠️ This plugin does not query a statute database — and that is the point

**It cannot find the most consequential error: a citation to a statute or article that does not exist, or that

has been repealed.** Confirming that requires the national laws-and-regulations database and the facts of the

case, which is a legal professional's work. What this plugin checks is whether a citation left behind the

elements needed to verify it — the law, the article, the quoted text, the power status, the purpose.

That boundary is stated in the pack's header, in LC-001's, LC-003's and LC-004's notes, and in the

troubleshooting section. Read it before acting on any finding: **a clean report from this plugin is not a

statement that the citations are correct.**

LC-002 checks the article number's *form* — 第X条 in Chinese or Arabic numerals, allowing 第X条之一 —

and nothing about whether the article exists. LC-003 checks that a quotation is transcribed, not that the

transcription matches the statute. LC-004's power-status vocabulary ships empty because no statute's

current status is built in either.

Every `excerpt` in the rule pack says, in so many words, that the clause text was not obtained. The regime

lives in 《中华人民共和国立法法》, GB/T 9704—2012 and each institution's legal-document review rules. The

verification pass could not retrieve verbatim clause text, so the pack states the gap in the excerpt field

itself and keeps every rule at warn or info. **When the texts are in hand, replace each excerpt with the

real clause and raise kind to direct.**

⚠️ One basis was corrected rather than completed. GB/T 9704—2012《党政机关公文格式》 was verified chapter by

chapter to be a layout standard — paper, typesetting, binding, the placement of document elements and the

specimen forms. It contains no provision about citation management at all. Six rules had been hung on it

anyway ("every citation must name the instrument and the article", "a direct quotation must be transcribed",

and so on). Those six now declare the institution's own legal-document review practice as their basis, are

rated `institutional-configuration`, and therefore sit at `info` rather than warn. Leaving them at

warn while their own note says "read this as the institution's practice" would have contradicted itself.

`LC-001` was then corrected the same way. It cited 《中华人民共和国立法法》. That statute was obtained in

full and does contain a numbering provision — 第六十五条: 「法律根据内容需要，可以分编、章、节、条、款、项、目」，with

numbering rules and an authorisation for the NPC Standing Committee's working body to draft legislative

technique rules. But that governs how a law is itself drafted and numbered; it says nothing about how an

official document cites an existing law. So LC-001 joins the other seven: **all eight rules in this pack now

declare the institution's own review practice as their basis and are rated institutional-configuration at

info.** See rules/evidence/clause-verification-basis-mismatch.md.

Compatibility

Surface · Status Harness · Peer range >=0.1.2-rc.1 =0.2.0-0 =0.2.1-0 =24.0.0 Platforms · All (plain ESM; no native code, no network, no model call) Tool mode · Works in native and ptc; for a long submission use ptc

What it does

Registers the lawcite_adapter tool. It reads one citation inventory — the document header plus one row per citation — applies a versioned rule pack, and returns a report.

Rule · Check · Severity · Basis kind LC-001 · the law name and article number are stated · info · local (institutional-configuration) LC-002 · the article number follows the Chinese form · info · local (institutional-configuration) LC-003 · a direct quotation is transcribed · info · local (institutional-configuration) LC-004 · the power status comes from your vocabulary (off by default) · info · local (institutional-configuration) LC-005 · the citation states its location and purpose · info · local (institutional-configuration) LC-006 · the document names its title and type · info · local (institutional-configuration) LC-007 · citation numbers are unique · info · local (institutional-configuration) LC-008 · the quotation column holds no unreplaced placeholder · info · local (institutional-configuration)

Configuration

Key · Type · Default · Description rulesFile · string · rules/lawcite-adapter.yaml · Rule-pack path, relative to the package root disabledRules · string[] · [] · Rule ids to stop running; each appears in skipped onlyRules · string[] · [] · Run only these rule ids; empty runs every rule skipNotes · string · "" · Note appended to every skipped reason timeoutMs · number · 120000 · Cooperative tool timeout budget

Rule-level parameters worth knowing:

• LC-002 pattern — the article number's shape, 第[〇零一二三四五六七八九十百千0-9]+条 plus an optional

之一, by default. Adjust it if your house style writes numbers differently.

• LC-004 values — your power-status vocabulary, e.g. [现行有效, 已修订, 已废止, 尚未生效]. Empty means no

check, and no statute's current status is built in either.

• LC-008 terms — the placeholders to look for. 「略」 is deliberately absent: ……（略） is a normal way to

abridge a long quotation.

Material format

The tool accepts JSON or YAML:

documentTitle: 某某买卖合同纠纷起诉状
documentType: 民事起诉状
author: 王律师
draftedAt: 2026-05-12
rows:
  - { 序号: '1', 法律法规名称: 《中华人民共和国民法典》, 条号: 第五百七十七条,
      引用原文: 当事人一方不履行合同义务或者履行合同义务不符合约定的，应当承担继续履行、采取补救措施或者赔偿损失等违约责任。,
      引用位置: 第 2 部分 诉讼请求的事实与理由（第三段）,
      论证作用: 作为被告违约责任请求权的法律依据,
      效力状态: 现行有效, 版本说明: 2020 年 5 月 28 日通过，2021 年 1 月 1 日施行, 引用格式: 脚注① }

Column names are matched case-insensitively and ignoring spaces, underscores and hyphens; the inventory's own column names are kept, so a finding names the column it read. Article numbers may use Chinese or Arabic numerals; a spaced Arabic form like 第 577 条 is reported so the house style stays consistent.

Rule sources

Rule data lives in rules/lawcite-adapter.yaml. Its header explains that the plugin holds no statute database and verifies neither existence nor validity, and each rule's note repeats the part that matters for that rule. The load-time guard still requires a document, clause, excerpt and source per rule, and still forbids a principle-derived or locally configured check from being error.

Troubleshooting

• It passed a citation to a repealed statute. By design: it checks that the citation is *verifiable*, never

that it is *correct*. Verifying needs the national database, which the plugin does not query.

• `LC-003` passed a quotation that is not what the statute says. It checks that a quotation is *present*.

Comparing it against the statute is the verification step it deliberately omits.

• `LC-002` fires on a form I consider acceptable. Adjust pattern to your house style. Note that paragraph

and item numbers belong in their own columns here, so 第 12 条第 3 款 should put 第 12 条 in the article column.

• `LC-004` never runs. Its vocabulary is empty, and no statute's status is built in.
• `LC-007` fires on one article cited twice. Citing the same provision in several sections is normal — give