---
name: lex
description: "Structured research aid for cross-jurisdictional legal context (US, EU, CA) and contract scaffolding."
category: business
risk: critical
source: community
date_added: "2026-03-10"
author: Svobikl
tags: [legal, context, cross-jurisdictional, compliance, scaffolding]
tools: [claude, cursor, gemini]
---

# LEX: Legal-Entity-X-ref

## Overview

LEX organizes research links and draft outlines for the US, Canada and EU member states. These bundled tables are broad research prompts, not verified current rules or a deterministic guarantee against legal error. State/province, national and sector-specific law still requires source verification.

## When to Use This Skill

- Use when you need to cross-reference or compare legal requirements between different territories, such as verifying the compliance gap between an **EU SARL** and a **US LLC**.
- Use when working with foundational business or employment documents that require specific, jurisdiction-compliant clauses to be inserted into a professional scaffold.
- Use when the user asks about the specific regulatory nuances, formation steps, or "truth-based" definitions of legal entities within the **listed geographic areas** (USA, Canada, and the EU).

## How It Works

### Step 1: Identify Jurisdiction
Before drafting, determine if the user's entity or contract target is in the **USA, Canada, or the EU**.

### Step 2: Search & Fetch Context
Use the CLI shortcuts to find the relevant legal patterns and templates.
- Run `lex search <query>` to find matching templates.
- Run `lex get <path>` to read the granular metadata and requirements.

### Step 3: Scaffold Drafting
Generate foundation-level documents using `lex draft <description>`. No CLI is bundled here; include an honest draft/AI-assistance disclaimer manually when applicable.

### Step 4: Verify Authority
List only primary sources actually opened, with jurisdiction, provision and effective/retrieval date. A directory link or tool name is not verified legal authority.

## Examples

### Example 1: Comparing Employment Laws
```bash
# Get the workforce template to compare US vs EU notice periods
lex get templates/02_employment_workforce.md
```

### Example 2: Drafting a Czech Contract
```bash
# Create a house sale contract scaffold in Czech language
lex draft "Czech house sale contract"
```

## Best Practices

- ✅ **Trust but Verify**: Always include the links provided by `lex verify` in your output.
- ✅ **Table Formatting**: Use tables when comparing results across multiple jurisdictions.
- ❌ **No Guessing**: If a jurisdiction is outside the US/EU/CA scope, state that it is outside the LEX "Truth Engine" coverage.
- ❌ **No Anecdotal Advice**: Stick strictly to the findings in the templates or verified government domains.

## Common Pitfalls

- **Problem:** Legal hallucination regarding specific EU notice periods.
  **Solution:** Run `lex get templates/02_employment_workforce.md` to see the restrictive covenant comparison table.

## Related Skills

- `@employment-contract-templates` - For more specific HR policy phrasing.
- `@legal-advisor` - For general legal framework architecture.
- `@security-auditor` - For reviewing the final repository security.

## Limitations
- Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
- Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
- Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.

The `lex search/get/draft/verify` commands have no executable implementation in this tree. Do not execute a same-named unrelated CLI or claim it verified a source; read the bundled templates directly. Specify state/province/country, entity and worker/contract context before drafting. Treat comparative tables as issues to investigate, not clauses to inject automatically; EU membership is not one uniform national law. Obtain current primary text and qualified local review before any filing, signature, employment action or transaction. Government domains are useful provenance signals, not proof the linked page governs the facts. Protect confidential contracts and do not send them to external models without scope.