AI agent skill · by @lawve-ai

Jurisrank

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.

Archived 2026-10-23 · Source updated 2026-10-02. Check the original repository for the latest version.

SKILL.md instructions

# 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](https://doi.org/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](https://justitia.com.ar)