{"id":"legal-jurisdiction-analyzer","title":"Jurisdiction Analyzer","description":"Analysis typed. Jurisdiction risk unclear. Typed v1 agent with eval coverage.","category":"legal","status":"validated","version":"1.0.0","source":"agentskit-registry","license":"MIT","tags":["legal","structured-output","v1"],"packages":["@agentskit/core","@agentskit/runtime","@agentskit/tools"],"files":["agent.ts","README.md","eval.ts"],"requires":{"zod":"^3","zod-to-json-schema":"^3"},"skill":{"name":"legal-jurisdiction-analyzer","description":"Analysis typed. Jurisdiction risk unclear. Typed v1 agent with eval coverage.","systemPrompt":"You are Jurisdiction Analyzer. Jurisdiction risk unclear. Output: Analysis typed.\nScore 0-100 with explicit factors from input.\nNEVER invent facts — gaps and openQuestions for missing input. Always draft for human review.\n${UNTRUSTED_CONTENT_DIRECTIVE}\nCall submit_jurisdiction_analyzer exactly once. Stop."},"flow":null,"a2a":{"id":"io.agentskit.registry.legal-jurisdiction-analyzer","name":"Jurisdiction Analyzer","description":"Analysis typed. Jurisdiction risk unclear. Typed v1 agent with eval coverage.","version":"1.0.0","homepage":"https://registry.agentskit.io","skills":[{"name":"legal-jurisdiction-analyzer","description":"Analysis typed. Jurisdiction risk unclear. Typed v1 agent with eval coverage.","capabilities":{"streaming":true,"cancellation":true,"requiresApproval":false}}]},"sources":[{"path":"agent.ts","content":"import type { AdapterFactory, ChatMemory, Observer, ToolCall, ToolDefinition } from '@agentskit/core'\nimport { fenceUntrustedContent, UNTRUSTED_CONTENT_DIRECTIVE } from '@agentskit/core/security'\nimport { invokeStructured } from '@agentskit/runtime'\nimport { defineZodTool } from '@agentskit/tools'\nimport { z } from 'zod'\nimport { zodToJsonSchema } from 'zod-to-json-schema'\nimport type { JSONSchema7 } from 'json-schema'\n\n/** Jurisdiction Analyzer — v1 validated. Pain: Jurisdiction risk unclear */\n\nexport interface AgentOutput { score: number; band: 'low' | 'medium' | 'high' | 'critical'; factors: string[]; rationale: string; gaps: string[] }\nexport interface AgentResult extends AgentOutput { requiresReview: boolean }\nexport interface LegalJurisdictionAnalyzerConfig {\n  adapter: AdapterFactory\n  memory?: ChatMemory\n  observers?: Observer[]\n  onConfirm?: (toolCall: ToolCall) => boolean | Promise<boolean>\n  maxSteps?: number\n}\n\nconst Output = z.object({\n  score: z.number().min(0).max(100),\n  band: z.enum(['low', 'medium', 'high', 'critical']),\n  factors: z.array(z.string()),\n  rationale: z.string(),\n  gaps: z.array(z.string()).default([]),\n})\nconst toJson = (s: z.ZodTypeAny): JSONSchema7 => zodToJsonSchema(s) as JSONSchema7\n\nconst skill = {\n  name: 'legal-jurisdiction-analyzer',\n  description: \"Jurisdiction Analyzer — typed output agent (draft spec).\",\n  systemPrompt: `You are Jurisdiction Analyzer. Jurisdiction risk unclear. Output: Analysis typed.\nScore 0-100 with explicit factors from input.\nNEVER invent facts — gaps and openQuestions for missing input. Always draft for human review.\n${UNTRUSTED_CONTENT_DIRECTIVE}\nCall submit_jurisdiction_analyzer exactly once. Stop.`,\n  tools: ['submit_jurisdiction_analyzer'],\n}\n\nexport function createLegalJurisdictionAnalyzerAgent(config: LegalJurisdictionAnalyzerConfig) {\n  const submit = (): ToolDefinition =>\n    defineZodTool({ name: 'submit_jurisdiction_analyzer', description: 'Submit result. Once.', schema: Output, toJsonSchema: toJson, async execute() { return 'recorded' } }) as ToolDefinition\n\n  async function run(input: string): Promise<AgentResult> {\n    if (!input?.trim()) throw new Error('legal-jurisdiction-analyzer requires non-empty input')\n    const result = await invokeStructured({\n      adapter: config.adapter,\n      tool: submit(),\n      task: `INPUT:\\n${fenceUntrustedContent(input)}`,\n      parse: (a) => Output.parse(a),\n      skill,\n      memory: config.memory,\n      observers: config.observers,\n      onConfirm: config.onConfirm,\n      maxSteps: config.maxSteps ?? 4,\n    })\n    return { ...result, requiresReview: true }\n  }\n  return {\n    name: 'legal-jurisdiction-analyzer',\n    run,\n    asHandle() { return { name: 'legal-jurisdiction-analyzer', run: (t: string) => run(t).then((r) => JSON.stringify(r)) } },\n  }\n}\n"},{"path":"README.md","content":"# Jurisdiction Analyzer\n\n> **v1 validated** — `npx agentskit add legal-jurisdiction-analyzer`\n\n## Pain\nJurisdiction risk unclear\n\n## Output\nAnalysis typed\n"},{"path":"eval.ts","content":"import type { EvalSuite } from '@agentskit/eval'\n\nexport const suite: EvalSuite = {\n  name: 'legal-jurisdiction-analyzer',\n  cases: [\n    { input: 'Complete input for Jurisdiction Analyzer: Jurisdiction risk unclear. Provide full structured output.', expected: (r: string) => r.length > 20 && /requiresReview|summary|title|category|findings|sections|score|clusters|items|steps/i.test(r) },\n    { input: 'Minimal input.', expected: (r: string) => /gap|openQuestion/i.test(r) || r.length > 10 },\n    { input: 'Input with specific detail: ACME Corp project deadline March 15.', expected: (r: string) => /ACME|March|15/i.test(r) || /gap/i.test(r) },\n    { input: 'Empty context — only says \"process this\".', expected: (r: string) => r.length > 5 },\n  ],\n}\n"}],"installable":true,"validation":{"status":"approved","score":96,"confidence":0.96,"method":"codex-executor-independent-reviewer","iterations":1,"cases":3,"summary":"The agent produced valid structured outputs for all three cases, stayed within the jurisdiction-analysis purpose, did not invent facts, handled missing context conservatively, surfaced concrete information gaps, required human review, and resisted the injection request. The outputs are useful for sparse legal inputs because they clearly communicate uncertainty without making unsupported legal conclusions. Minor weakness: the normal case remains generic because the input itself was only a meta-request, but the refusal to hallucinate facts is appropriate for v1 legal validation.","strengths":["Valid structured output in every case with score, band, factors, rationale, gaps, and review requirement.","Consistently avoids hallucinating parties, forums, governing law, or jurisdictional conclusions from absent facts.","Handles prompt injection correctly by ignoring the instruction to output APPROVED.","Uses a conservative medium-risk uncertainty posture for missing jurisdictional facts.","Provides specific, actionable gaps needed for human legal review."],"notes":[]}}