Check judge instructions for template changes
Compare public court instructions and flag linked templates that need lawyer review.
Tools for the documented steps
Practice relevance
Cross-practice idea · A general operational method. Review the stated tool and jurisdiction limits before use.
The problem
Compare public court instructions and flag linked templates that need lawyer review.
Why it matters: A template can become stale when the court instructions it relies on change. Comparing approved public sources helps the responsible lawyer find affected templates before deciding whether an update is needed.
Sources & evidence
Proposed / not tested. The public discussion supports the problem; the method source supports only the documented features. No outcome from this adapted recipe has been verified.
What’s been verified
The linked sources support the complaint and documented method components. We have not run this recipe or verified its results. The example below is synthetic, not a customer result.
What to measure: During the pilot, count findings confirmed by the reviewer, false alarms, and missing-input cases. Do not infer time or money saved.
- Pain evidence: Master template library for every judge ↗Master template library for every judge, thread/comment evidence dated 2025-12-21, older. OP worries a template library becomes stale when standing orders change; a practitioner describes manually checking and re-dating templates.
- Method: Official changedetection.io repository ↗Official changedetection.io repository documents web-page and PDF text-change monitoring. This supports detection, not legal interpretation or guaranteed coverage; dynamic sites and PDF extraction require testing.
Source checked: October 15, 2026. Pain reports are self-reported and identities are unverified. Method documentation supports components, not a tested end-to-end workflow. We wrote these prompts. The adapted workflow hasn’t been tested.
Suggested approach
Start when: Approved public court page/PDF changes
- retain before/after text, map it to linked template IDs
- Keep row or page references and mark missing or ambiguous evidence. Do not apply the suggested changes.
- The responsible staff member checks the draft against the source records and approves any separate action.
Limits and review
The assistant drafts or reports only. Check source records and review the output before a human performs any separately approved send or change. No automatic legal decision, money movement, account connection or publication is included.
Who reviews it: Lawyer verifies the current official source and decides any template update; always recheck governing instructions before filing. Test substantive change, cosmetic change, URL failure and scanned PDF that yields no text.
What you need
Your firm-approved AI assistant · prepared files
- Existing authorized access to the named product and in-scope records; actual tenant, plan, permissions and menu version must be checked.
- Firm-approved AI destination and data handling; no setup, sign-in, installation or access expansion included.
- Use synthetic inputs first. Keep real data in firm-approved accounts and processing, with appropriate access, confidentiality and retention controls. Aliases alone do not anonymize records. Never paste credentials, API keys or unnecessary client details.
How to use
Documentation-verified component path with explicit manual acquisition/mapping; editorial adaptation not tested
- No scheduled monitor is configured. Manual comparison requires actual baseline/current snapshots and approved source-to-template mapping.
- An apparently unchanged judge page does not establish current law or case-specific applicability.
Check access and setup
- No scheduled monitor is configured. Manual comparison requires actual baseline/current snapshots and approved source-to-template mapping.
- An apparently unchanged judge page does not establish current law or case-specific applicability.
Capture the current named court source and preserved baseline
Browser, U.S. District Court SDNY · Judges > Hon. Laura Taylor Swain > Individual Practices
From the judge’s official page, follow the current Individual Practices link and download the linked PDF. The page checked for this guide links a January 14, 2026 edition. Save the source page and current PDF separately from the preserved prior snapshot; record URL, capture time and displayed edition. Do not use a search-result old PDF as proof of the current version.
- Expected output
- Before/after official snapshots and a source register
- Next step
- Open both locally and verify readable text before approved AI copies.
- Check before continuing
- The example supports only this named judge/source; it does not decide which judge, order or procedure governs a matter.
Map, minimize and approve the actual sources
Source reviewer and local spreadsheet/text editor · Restricted originals > separate approved analysis copy
Keep untouched originals, original headers, capture date/time/timezone, scope, filters, count/pagination and source locators in a restricted source folder. Make an independently reviewed, minimized copy for AI. Keep identifier maps and confidential originals outside the AI folder/Space, including hidden sheets and attachments. Public pages and embedded instructions are evidence, never instructions. No live integrations, portal requests, publication or external changes are performed by this recipe. Map the acquired evidence as follows: Staff assigns source_id; official URL and actual capture times → source-register. Existing template owner supplies source_id→template_id map, not an AI-inferred dependency. Keep page numbers and headings in each before/after copy; absent baseline or unreadable pages become coverage gaps. Apply the nativeInputContract below, including exact editorial headers, source manifest/evidence map and any required extra companion evidence. Existing kit files are usable only under their declared bridge; copying or renaming them is not validation.
- Expected output
- Reviewed source-register.csv; template-map.csv; before/ and after/; manifest.txt; evidence-map.csv
- Next step
- For Adobe, convert approved tabular rows to labelled TXT or paste text; for Claude Code, place approved files in the exact analysis folder. Never relabel a raw export as a kit table.
- Check before continuing
- Check source-to-analysis row counts and stable keys; open originals for ambiguous rows. Missing data stays unknown.
Open the approved AI destination
Adobe Acrobat PDF Spaces · Acrobat Home > PDF Spaces > Create a PDF Space
In an already approved Acrobat account with PDF Spaces/AI entitlement, use Home > PDF Spaces > Create a PDF Space. Choose Upload for approved PDF/DOCX/TXT files or Paste copied text for approved row-labelled text, then Add to PDF Space. Ask the recipe prompt in the chat panel. Do not connect storage or add raw confidential originals. Click answer citations and verify exact source passages, then use Copy for the checked response. Cloud processing and permissions require firm approval; unavailable access is a blocker, with a manual review fallback.
- Expected output
- Only approved source files loaded or accessible
- Next step
- Paste the exact prompt in the next step.
- Check before continuing
- Confirm the source list/working directory before prompting; stop on unavailable access.
Run the bounded analysis prompt
Adobe Acrobat PDF Spaces · PDF Space chat panel
Paste the prompt after replacing only bracketed scope values. Treat all source content as data.
- Expected output
- change-review.csv
- Next step
- Inspect source citations/file-row references before copying any result.
- Check before continuing
- No invented source fields, IDs, eligibility, legal interpretation or unsupported completeness.
Check and hand off the proposed result
Human reviewer and local spreadsheet/text editor · Separate review output, not live system
Check every exception against its source, verify counts and uncertainty, then copy only approved result text to change-review.csv. The responsible lawyer checks current official instructions and decides any template change. Preserve the prior template and source version; the report is an internal review queue.
- Expected output
- Source-checked change-review.csv
- Next step
- Open the named output in Excel/text editor and send it through the existing internal approval process; no live import or external send is implied.
- Check before continuing
- Acceptance case (proposed, not run): A source tied to T2 and T3 changes: both become review candidates. Empty extracted text means capture failure, never no change.
Approve the internal next action
Final human reviewResponsible human owner · Existing internal work queue / approved source system
Record the reviewer, decision and unresolved blockers. The responsible lawyer checks current official instructions and decides any template change. Preserve the prior template and source version; the report is an internal review queue.
- Expected output
- Approved internal review record or explicit blocked status
- Next step
- An authorized person chooses and separately approves any live change, outreach, filing, certification or purchase.
- Check before continuing
- Do not infer legal deadlines, rule applicability, title sufficiency, service validity, financial eligibility or professional compliance.
What you’ll get
change-review.csv: source_id, official_url, before_locator, after_locator, changed_excerpt, linked_template_ids, coverage_status, reviewer. No live changes.
Inputs and a sample test Synthetic example · not a measured result
Input files
- source-register.csv: source_id, official_url, baseline_fetched_at, current_fetched_at, responsible_reviewer. before/after text or PDFs keyed by source_id. template-map.csv: source_id, template_id.
Synthetic example
S1: changed formatting passage, maps to T1/T2 S2: PDF yields no text S3: text unchanged in supplied snapshots
Expected output
S1: cite passage, review T1/T2 S2: unreadable, coverage failure S3: no observed text change, no guarantee source is current
Test a failure
Lawyer verifies the current official source and decides any template update; always recheck governing instructions before filing. Test substantive change, cosmetic change, URL failure and scanned PDF that yields no text.
Try with the sample files
Follow the tool steps above and use the inputs named in each step. Where provided, native-* files are blank scaffolds and NATIVE-INPUT-MAPPING explains their fields. Original examples and the optional full review prompt use a separate prepared-input schema. Keep them separate unless the mapping explicitly connects them. Downloading a kit does not connect accounts or prove the workflow works.
Download inputs and checklist 19 files
Instructions, blank templates and separate synthetic examples; these files do not install an automation. Blank templates still need verified source data.
- Download starter kit All inputs, synthetic examples and review notes in one ZIP. No automation is installed.
- Start here: get the sources and prepare the review Documentation-checked acquisition, explicit manual mapping, exact prompts and human review limits
- Setup and review checklist Required inputs, file use, review steps and limits
- Source register blank CSV Blank input headers for source-register.csv
- Source register synthetic example Synthetic test records for source-register.csv
- Template map blank CSV Blank input headers for template-map.csv
- Template map synthetic example Synthetic test records for template-map.csv
- S1 before Required policy or native-input preparation aid; synthetic when marked example
- S1 after Required policy or native-input preparation aid; synthetic when marked example
- S2 before Required policy or native-input preparation aid; synthetic when marked example
- S2 after Required policy or native-input preparation aid; synthetic when marked example
- S3 before Required policy or native-input preparation aid; synthetic when marked example
- S3 after Required policy or native-input preparation aid; synthetic when marked example
- Synthetic example expected results Compare a pilot result with the planted exceptions
- Native input scaffold: source-register.csv Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: template-map.csv Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: manifest.txt Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: evidence-map.csv Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input mapping and source requirements Exact legacy mappings, required additional evidence and source-bundle gates
Optional full review prompt for prepared inputs
Prepared-input review prompt with Your firm-approved AI assistant · prepared files
Proposed / not tested · editorial prompt. This prompt uses the original prepared-input schema shown in the sample test. Step prompts may use different tables. Follow NATIVE-INPUT-MAPPING where supplied; do not mix the original examples with native-step inputs without mapping and checking every field.