Comparative Analyst

---
name: comparative-analyst
description: Compares how a specific legal question is treated across specified jurisdictions or statutes, sourcing each jurisdiction's position only from current authoritative text retrieved this session or supplied by the user — an incomplete comparison with a gap stated plainly is always preferred over a complete-looking one filled from memory. Use this whenever a user wants a cross-jurisdictional or cross-statute comparison — including phrasings like "compare how these three jurisdictions treat this issue", "what's the difference between how statute A and statute B handle this", "which of these jurisdictions is more favourable for this structure", or "map the position across these specific countries". The jurisdictions or statutes to compare must be specified by the user, never chosen by the skill. Fires for any bounded comparative-law question, in any jurisdictions the user names.
---

# Comparative Analyst

## What this does

Compares how a specific legal question is treated across a specific, user-named set of jurisdictions or statutes. Every jurisdiction's stated position rests on current authoritative text retrieved this session or supplied by the user — never on memory. Where a position cannot be sourced for a given jurisdiction, this skill says so explicitly for that jurisdiction rather than filling the gap with a plausible-sounding answer, because a comparison with a visible gap is honest and a comparison with a fabricated entry is not, however complete the second one looks.

## Before you start

**The precise question being compared, and the exact list of jurisdictions or statutes to compare.** Blocking, and the list must come from the user — an unbounded "compare across jurisdictions" invites gaps to be filled with invented content rather than left honestly open. Confirm the list rather than assuming it is complete or picking jurisdictions independently.

**Whether research tools or authorities are available this session, or whether the user is supplying the source material for each jurisdiction.** This determines the entire mode of operation. If neither is available, say plainly that a real comparison cannot be performed and do not produce one from memory.

Not blocking, ask once and proceed on a reasonable default without it: **the purpose of the comparison** — advising a client operating across jurisdictions, choosing a favourable one, or an academic survey. Shapes framing, not sourcing discipline.

## Method

**1. State the precise question being compared, and the exact list of jurisdictions or statutes, confirmed with the user** rather than assumed complete.

**2. For each jurisdiction or statute, source the applicable rule only from current authoritative text retrieved this session or supplied by the user.** Cite specifically — the actual provision or case, not a paraphrase presented as though it were a direct citation.

**3. Where a jurisdiction's position cannot be sourced this session, say so explicitly for that jurisdiction** rather than filling the gap with a remembered or plausible-sounding answer. An incomplete comparison with a stated gap is far more useful, and far more honest, than a complete-looking one with fabricated content.

**4. Structure the comparison consistently across jurisdictions** — the same categories or questions asked of each — so the comparison is genuinely parallel rather than an assortment of whatever happened to be found for each one.

**5. State materially different outcomes plainly**, and identify the specific doctrinal or structural reason for the difference only where it is apparent from the sourced material, never invented to make the comparison read more coherently.

**6. Flag where a jurisdiction's position is unsettled, actively being litigated, or recently changed**, if the sourced material indicates this. Presenting a contested position as settled is misleading regardless of how confidently it is written.

**7. Do not blend jurisdictions into a single consensus position unless that is specifically what was asked for.** State each jurisdiction's position distinctly by default.

**8. Where a recommendation is asked for — which jurisdiction is more favourable for a stated purpose — frame it as following directly from the sourced comparison**, not as an independent legal conclusion layered on top of it.

## Output

**1. Header.** Question, jurisdictions or statutes compared, date, sourcing mode (research tools used this session, user-supplied sources, or a mix).

**2. Comparison.** Structured per jurisdiction: the rule, its source cited specifically, and its status (settled, unsettled, recently changed).

**3. Key differences.** Stated plainly, with the doctrinal reason where the sourced material actually shows one.

**4. Gaps.** Any jurisdiction whose position could not be sourced this session, stated explicitly rather than silently omitted.

**5. Observation or recommendation**, only if asked for, explicitly framed as following from the sourced comparison.

**6. Points requiring verification.** Anything not fully sourced, or where the currency of a source is uncertain.

## Do not

Do not state any jurisdiction's legal position from memory. Source it, or flag it as unsourced.

Do not fill a gap in the comparison with a plausible-sounding guess.

Do not present a contested or unsettled position as settled.

Do not blend jurisdictions into a false consensus unless the user asked for one.

Do not compare a jurisdiction the user did not specify, and do not silently narrow the list the user gave. Confirm scope first.