Hlr footnotes and cite check
Journal-specific Claude Code/Codex skill packs covering mainstream journals — AER, QJE, Nature, Cell, 管理世界, 经济研究 & 200+ more — your fast track to getting published. ｜ 覆盖主流期刊的 Claude Code/Codex 期刊技能包，从选题、识别策略到表格规范与审稿回复全流程，助你快速发论文。
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill hlr-footnotes-and-cite-checkAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Use when building and stress-testing the heavy footnote apparatus of a Harvard Law Review (HLR) piece so it survives the student-editor cite-check / source-pull. Builds and audits the apparatus for pull-readiness; it does not set Bluebook form per citation (hlr-sources-and-bluebook) or manage the editor relationship (hlr-student-editor-review).
SKILL.md
4.8 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Footnotes and Cite-Check (hlr-footnotes-and-cite-check)
Legal scholarship runs on a dense footnote apparatus, and HLR editors run a full cite-check / source-pull: they obtain every cited source and confirm that each footnote actually supports its proposition, that quotations are exact, and that pincites are right. The author who is pull-ready before submission sails through; the one who is not faces painful rounds. This skill builds the apparatus and audits it for that scrutiny.
When to trigger
- Building footnotes as you draft, or auditing them before submission
- Preparing for the source-pull after an offer
- A footnote carries a proposition you are not sure the source supports
- Quotations, pincites, or short forms feel shaky after editing moved footnotes
What the apparatus must do
- Support every proposition. Each assertion of law or fact in the text has a footnote whose source actually states (or, with the right signal, supports) it — at the exact page cited.
- Carry the qualifications. Caveats, contrary authority, and side disputes live in footnotes so the
text reads as a clean argument (see the text/footnote division in
hlr-writing-style). - Be verifiable by a stranger. A student editor with no prior knowledge must be able to pull each source and confirm the footnote — that is the whole test.
Pull-readiness: the author's source file
Before submission, assemble a source file: a copy (or precise locator) of every cited source with the cited page marked and the supported proposition noted. This is the single best predictor of an easy cite-check.
| Source type | What to keep | Pull-check |
|---|---|---|
| Cases | Reporter cite + the pincited page | Does that page state/support the proposition? |
| Statutes / regs | Exact section, current version | Is the language current and on point? |
| Articles / books | Copy with cited page flagged | Quote exact? Pincite to the right page? |
| Web sources | Archived/dated copy (link rot is real) | Captured with an access date? |
Self-running cite-check (do this before editors do)
- Proposition ↔ source match. Read each footnote against the page it cites. If the page does not support the claim, fix the cite or soften the claim — never leave the gap.
- Quotation accuracy. Check every quotation character-for-character against the source; verify the pincite.
- Signal accuracy. Confirm the signal matches the relationship (see
hlr-sources-and-bluebook). - Short-form integrity. After any footnote reordering, re-verify every Id. and supra — these break silently when notes move.
- No orphan or dead cites. Every footnote resolves; no broken cross-references or rotted URLs.
Checklist
- Every text proposition has a supporting footnote, pincited to the exact page
- Source file assembled: every source kept with the cited page marked
- Each footnote re-read against its source page (proposition actually supported)
- Every quotation verified character-for-character and pinned
- Signals match relationships; short forms (Id./supra) re-verified after moves
- Web sources archived with access dates (link rot)
- No orphan footnotes, dead cross-references, or unsupportable claims
Anti-patterns
- Footnotes that gesture at a source which does not actually support the proposition
- Quotations not checked against the original (a cite-check failure that erodes trust fast)
- Dangling Id./supra after footnotes were reordered in drafting or editing
- Citing web sources without an archived, dated capture (link rot at proof time)
- Leaving the source-gathering until editors ask — assemble the source file before submission
Output format
【Apparatus】every proposition footnoted + pincited? [Y/N]
【Source file】all sources kept with cited pages marked? [Y/N]
【Self cite-check】propositions match sources; quotations exact? [Y/N]
【Short forms】Id./supra re-verified after moves? [Y/N]
【Pull-ready】a stranger could verify every footnote? [Y/N]
【Next】hlr-writing-style (text/footnote balance) → hlr-submission
Supplementary resources
../../resources/external_tools.md— citators (Shepard's/KeyCite), archiving (Perma.cc), reference managers../../resources/official-source-map.md— HLR's Bluebook role and editorial cite-check practice