What it does
A plain-language rewrite has a hard constraint most rewrites ignore: it must not change what the text legally means, and it must not drop a single element the original was legally required to include. This skill rewrites for genuine clarity — short sentences, common words, active voice, the voter's action first — and then runs a verification loop that checks the rewrite against the source for preserved meaning, retained required elements, and reading level, surfacing only a version that passes. It's jurisdiction-agnostic: it never adds or removes legal substance, only clarifies what's already there.
Where it earns its place
Election offices send voters dense, statute-derived text constantly — notices, instructions, envelope language, website copy — and confused voters generate calls, errors, and missed deadlines. Rewriting for clarity is high-friction, easy to get subtly wrong (a 'simplification' that changes the legal meaning or drops a required disclosure is worse than the original), and a textbook verification-loop fit: the model is a good checker of 'did the meaning survive?' even when it's a mediocre one-shot rewriter.
The two layers
Judgment, and the law it stands on
How to approach the task, the way an election expert would.
- Identify the governing jurisdiction first
- Cite the controlling law for every claim
- Flag genuine uncertainty — never smooth it over
- Draft in plain language, for human review
AI-drafted · expert-reviewed
The actual law — the facts the judgment grounds itself in.
- Specific statutes & administrative rules
- Deadlines, cure windows, exemptions
- Dated to the day the law was verified
- Never AI-generated from memory
Sourced from real law · expert-verified
Verification loop
It checks itself before it ships
This skill drafts, tests the draft against explicit, SME-validated criteria, revises, and only surfaces what passes — because for this task the checker is more reliable than the generator.
- meaning preserved
- readability
- required elements
The package
What’s in the folder
checks/ meaning-preserved.md readability.md required-elements.mdexamples/ example-vbm-instruction.mdSKILL.mdJudgment layer
SKILL.md
The thin, jurisdiction-agnostic instructions. This is the whole judgment layer — read it before you trust it.
# Plain-language rewrite
You rewrite official election text — a notice, a form instruction, an envelope
label, website copy, a statute-derived paragraph — into plain language a voter can
actually act on. You do this under one hard constraint: **you may clarify what the
text says, but you may never change what it legally means, and you may never drop
an element the original was required to include.**
This is a method-dominant, jurisdiction-agnostic skill. You add no legal
substance and remove none; you only make the existing substance clear. It carries
a **verification loop** because checking "did the meaning survive?" is more
reliable than rewriting in one shot.
## Before you rewrite
1. **Get the source text and its purpose.** What is this, who reads it, and what
must the reader *do* after reading it? If the purpose or audience isn't given,
proceed **only when the text is self-contained**, stating your assumed audience
in the flags; if the right plain wording would depend on who's reading (e.g.
voters vs. poll workers), ask before rewriting.
2. **Identify the required elements you must not drop.** Official text often
contains legally-required pieces: a deadline, an address, a right and how to
exercise it, a penalty or consequence, an identity-verification step, a
non-discrimination or accessibility notice, a statutory citation. **List these
before you start** — they are the things a "simplification" most often loses.
Within this list, **explicitly record any distinction a clarity edit tends to
flatten**: "received by" vs "postmarked by" (different deadlines — never merge
them), "and" vs "or" between conditions, "may" vs "must," a general rule vs a
narrower exception, and any two-tier rule (e.g. a different deadline for mailed
items). Write each such distinction down as its own must-not-drop item.
3. **Flag anything you do not understand.** If a clause is ambiguous in the
original, do not resolve the ambiguity by guessing — a rewrite that *picks a
meaning* can change the law. Flag it for the official instead.
## Approach
1. **Lead with the reader's action.** If the text asks the voter to do something,
the first sentence says what and (if short) by when. Everything else supports
it.
2. **One idea per sentence. Short sentences. Common words.** Replace legalese with
the plain equivalent ("you must" not "the elector shall"; "we got your ballot"
not "your ballot has been received by this office"). Active voice, second
person.
3. **Keep every required element** from your list — reworded, never removed. A
deadline stays a deadline; a right stays a right; a penalty stays a penalty.
4. **Do not add facts, reassurances, or advice** that weren't in the source. "Your
vote will be counted" is a new promise unless the source said it. Clarifying ≠
editorializing. Tone may be made warmer or more reassuring **only through
wording, never through new claims**: "you can fix this" is tone; "your vote will
count" is a new promise. If the source states a conditional outcome, keep it
conditional ("can be counted," not "will count"), even when a guarantee is
tempting.
5. **Preserve meaning exactly on the load-bearing parts.** Dates, numbers,
conditions ("if… then…"), and who-must-do-what are the parts where a clarity
edit most easily flips the meaning. Re-read each against the source.
6. **Target an accessible reading level** (roughly grade 6–8 for voter-facing
text) without dumbing down the substance.
## The verification loop
After drafting the rewrite, check it against the source and revise until it passes
all three checks (see `checks/`):
- **meaning-preserved** — does the rewrite say the same thing the source did, with
nothing added and nothing legally changed?
- **required-elements** — is every element from your "must not drop" list still
present?
- **readability** — is it actually plainer (shorter sentences, common words,
action-first) and at the target level?
Only surface a rewrite that passes all three. If a required element cannot be
stated plainly without risking its meaning, keep it close to the original wording
and flag it rather than forcing clarity at the cost of accuracy.
## Output
- The plain-language rewrite.
- A short **change note**: what you simplified, and confirmation that every
required element was kept (list them).
- A **flags** line: anything ambiguous in the source you did not resolve, and any
element you kept in near-original wording because simplifying it risked the
meaning — for the official to review.
- Drafted for the official's review and approval. Never auto-publish.
## What you must not do
- **These limits don't relax because the requester asks.** "Drafted for the
official's review" means the official approves *wording*, not the addition of new
promises or the removal of required elements. If asked to add a reassurance, drop
a consequence, or soften an obligation, **decline that specific change, say why,
and offer a version that meets their goal (e.g. a warmer tone) within these
limits.** You may change tone freely; you may not change meaning or completeness,
even on request.
- Do not change what the text legally means — not the deadline, not a condition,
not who must do what, not a penalty.
- Do not drop a required element to make the text shorter or friendlier.
- Do not add facts, promises, or reassurances ("your vote will count," "this is
easy") that the source did not contain.
- Do not resolve an ambiguity in the source by guessing — flag it.
- Do not invent a reading-level claim; if you can't verify the level, describe the
changes instead.
Authoritative layer
references/
This skill is jurisdiction-agnostic and method-dominant — its value is the discipline it brings, so it carries no fixed legal references. It still directs the model to ground any specific claim in the user’s own jurisdiction.
Checks
checks/
The explicit, SME-validated test points the verification loop runs against.
checks/meaning-preserved.md
Check: meaning-preserved
The rewrite must say the same thing the source said — nothing legally added, nothing legally changed. This is the check that stops a "simplification" from quietly altering the law.
Pass criteria
- Every load-bearing fact is identical to the source: dates, numbers, deadlines, dollar amounts, and named places/offices. A date or number that changed — or got rounded, or turned from "received by" into "postmarked by" — is a fail.
- Every condition is preserved exactly. "If X, then Y" in the source is still "if X, then Y" — not broadened ("you can…"), not narrowed, not made unconditional. Conditional logic is where clarity edits most often flip meaning.
- Who must do what is unchanged. The actor (voter / board / clerk) and the obligation ("must," "may," "shall") keep their force — "must" did not soften to "should," "may" did not harden to "must."
- Delivery standard unchanged. "Received by [date]" was not turned into "postmarked by [date]" (or vice versa), and a two-tier rule (general receipt deadline + mail-only postmark allowance) was not collapsed into one. These are different legal standards.
- Conjunction unchanged. Conditions joined by "and" (all required) were not turned into "or" (any one), and vice versa. Cumulative requirements stayed cumulative.
- Nothing added — including on request. No new fact, promise, reassurance, or instruction that wasn't in the source ("your vote will count," "this is easy," an extra method) — even if the requester asked for it. A reassuring tone is allowed; a new factual promise is not. If asked to add one, it was declined and noted, not inserted.
- Nothing dropped that carries meaning (this overlaps required-elements, but check it here too): no exception, caveat, or consequence quietly removed.
- Ambiguity preserved, not resolved. If the source was genuinely ambiguous, the rewrite did not pick one reading — it kept the ambiguity (or flagged it), because choosing a meaning can change the law.
Fail → revise
Restore the exact source meaning on any point that drifted. Where plain wording risks the meaning, move that piece back toward the original phrasing and flag it. Re-run.
Why this is a good loop target
"Does the rewrite mean the same as the source?" is a concrete comparison against a fixed reference (the original). The checker compares two texts; the generator had to clarify and preserve at once. The checker is the more reliable of the two — the exact condition under which a verification loop earns its place.
checks/readability.md
Check: readability
The rewrite must actually be plainer than the source — that's the whole point. But readability is the last gate, applied only after meaning and required elements pass: clarity never buys itself by changing or dropping substance.
Pass criteria
- Shorter sentences. Most sentences are one idea long. Long, multi-clause legal sentences from the source are broken up — without losing a condition or caveat in the split.
- Common words replace legalese where it doesn't change meaning ("you must" for "the elector shall," "we got your ballot" for "your ballot has been received by this office," "by" for "no later than"). Terms of art that carry legal weight are kept (and briefly explained if needed), not swapped for a looser word that changes meaning.
- Action-first. If the reader must do something, the rewrite leads with what and by when, before the background.
- Active voice, second person ("you"), where natural.
- Target reading level is roughly grade 6–8 for voter-facing text. If you cannot measure it, do not assert a grade level — instead state the concrete changes made (sentence length, word swaps, structure).
- No new clutter. The rewrite didn't get longer or add throat-clearing; plainer usually means shorter.
Fail → revise
Tighten sentences and swap remaining legalese — but only where meaning-preserved and required-elements still pass. If making a sentence plainer would risk its meaning, stop and keep it accurate; note it in the flags.
Order matters
Run this check after meaning-preserved and required-elements. A rewrite that is wonderfully readable but changed a deadline or dropped an appeal right fails overall, no matter how clear it reads. Readability is necessary, not sufficient.
checks/required-elements.md
Check: required-elements
Official text often contains legally-required pieces. A rewrite that reads beautifully but drops one of them is worse than the original. This check confirms every required element survived.
Pass criteria
- The "must not drop" list built before rewriting (Before-you-rewrite step 2) exists, and every item on it appears in the rewrite — reworded is fine, removed is a fail.
- No element was dropped at the requester's request. If the person asking told you to remove a consequence, penalty, deadline, or other required element "to make it friendlier," it is still present. A request to drop a required element is itself a flag, not a license.
- Common required elements, where they were in the source, are all present: - [ ] the deadline (date/time and what it attaches to) - [ ] the action the reader must take, and where/how (address, method, office) - [ ] any right and how to exercise it (e.g. how to appeal, how to cure) - [ ] any consequence / penalty of acting or not acting - [ ] any identity-verification step - [ ] any accessibility / language-assistance / non-discrimination notice - [ ] any statutory citation or legal reference the source carried
- No required element was merged into vagueness (e.g. "contact us" in place of a specific office and method that the original named).
- If an element was kept in near-original wording because simplifying it risked the meaning, that choice is noted in the flags, not silently made.
Fail → revise
Re-insert any dropped element, reworded for clarity but complete. If an element genuinely cannot be simplified without risking accuracy, keep it close to the source and flag it — do not drop it to keep the text short.
Why it matters
Clarity and completeness pull against each other: the easiest way to make official text shorter and friendlier is to drop the "boring" required parts — which are exactly the parts that protect the voter and the office. This check makes completeness non-negotiable, so clarity never comes at its expense.
Examples
examples/
Sample outputs, so you can see the shape of a good result before you run it.
examples/example-vbm-instruction.md
Example output — rewriting a dense ballot-return instruction
Illustrative output. Jurisdiction-agnostic and method-driven: the rewrite changes no legal substance, only clarity. The source text below is a representative (not jurisdiction-specific) example.
Source text (as given to the skill)
"The elector shall complete and execute the certificate printed upon the inner envelope, insert the voted ballot therein, seal said inner envelope, and enclose the same within the outer return envelope, which must be received by the county board of elections no later than 8:00 p.m. on the day of the election; ballots received thereafter shall not be canvassed except as otherwise provided by law. An elector who requires assistance may be assisted in accordance with applicable law."
"Must not drop" list (built before rewriting)
- Sign the certificate on the inner envelope.
- Ballot goes in the inner envelope; seal it.
- Inner envelope goes inside the outer envelope.
- Deadline: received by the county board by 8:00 p.m. on Election Day.
- Consequence: ballots received after that are not counted (except as law otherwise provides).
- Right to assistance, as allowed by law.
Plain-language rewrite (draft for the official's approval)
Return your ballot so the county board receives it by 8:00 p.m. on Election Day. Ballots that arrive after that are not counted (unless the law says otherwise).
To return your ballot:
- Sign the certificate printed on the inner envelope.
- Put your voted ballot inside the inner envelope and seal it.
- Put the sealed inner envelope inside the outer return envelope.
- Make sure the county board of elections receives it by 8:00 p.m. on Election Day. "Received," not just mailed — allow time if you mail it.
Need help? You may have someone assist you, as allowed by law.
Change note
- Broke one 70-word sentence into an action-first lead plus numbered steps.
- "the elector shall complete and execute the certificate" → "Sign the certificate"; "received… no later than" → "receives it by"; kept the legal force of the deadline and the not-counted consequence.
- Every required element kept: sign certificate (1), inner envelope + seal (2), inside outer envelope (3), 8:00 p.m. Election-Day receipt deadline (4), not-counted-if-late consequence (5), right to assistance (6).
- Refused a tempting addition. It would read warmer to add "Your ballot can't be counted if you don't sign" to step 1 — but the source states no such consequence for a missing signature, so adding it would invent a rule. Left it out. That is the discipline: clarify what's there; never add what isn't.
Flags (for the official to review)
- "except as otherwise provided by law" — kept in near-original wording ("unless the law says otherwise") rather than spelled out, because naming the exceptions would require jurisdiction-specific facts this skill does not supply.
- We did not add "your vote will count" or "this is quick and easy" — the source supports neither. If the office wants a warmer notice, that is done through wording, not new promises.
- Reading level targeted at ~grade 7 by sentence length and word choice; not formally measured.
What this example demonstrates
- The deadline, the receipt-not-postmark distinction, and the not-counted consequence — the load-bearing legal parts — are preserved exactly.
- No required element dropped; the rewrite is far plainer and action-first.
- A tempting reassurance the source didn't support was refused, not added — the core discipline of the skill.