Footnotes and Cite-Check (hlr-footnotes-and-cite-check)

SkillDocs & knowledge

Use when building and stress-testing the heavy footnote apparatus of a Harvard Law Review (HLR) piece so it survives the student-editor cite-check / source-pull. Builds and audits the apparatus for pull-readiness; it does not set Bluebook form per citation (hlr-sources-and-bluebook) or manage the editor relationship (hlr-student-editor-review).

Instructions available. Your AI can read the instructions. Execution depends on the setup they require.

Add ahel to your AI once: Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, Claude Code or Codex. Then ask it to use this.

Then ask your AI: use the Footnotes and Cite-Check (hlr-footnotes-and-cite-check) skill

What this skill tells your AI

The instructions your AI receives, as published by brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills in Harvard-Law-Review-Skills/skills/hlr-footnotes-and-cite-check/SKILL.md and read by ahel’s review.

Legal scholarship runs on a dense footnote apparatus, and HLR editors run a full cite-check / source-pull: they obtain every cited source and confirm that each footnote actually supports its proposition, that quotations are exact, and that pincites are right. The author who is pull-ready before submission sails through; the one who is not faces painful rounds. This skill builds the apparatus and audits it for that scrutiny.

When to trigger

  • Building footnotes as you draft, or auditing them before submission
  • Preparing for the source-pull after an offer
  • A footnote carries a proposition you are not sure the source supports
  • Quotations, pincites, or short forms feel shaky after editing moved footnotes

What the apparatus must do

  1. Support every proposition. Each assertion of law or fact in the text has a footnote whose source actually states (or, with the right signal, supports) it — at the exact page cited.
  2. Carry the qualifications. Caveats, contrary authority, and side disputes live in footnotes so the text reads as a clean argument (see the text/footnote division in hlr-writing-style).
  3. Be verifiable by a stranger. A student editor with no prior knowledge must be able to pull each source and confirm the footnote — that is the whole test.

Pull-readiness: the author's source file

Before submission, assemble a source file: a copy (or precise locator) of every cited source with the cited page marked and the supported proposition noted. This is the single best predictor of an easy cite-check.

Source typeWhat to keepPull-check
CasesReporter cite + the pincited pageDoes that page state/support the proposition?
Statutes / regsExact section, current versionIs the language current and on point?
Articles / booksCopy with cited page flaggedQuote exact? Pincite to the right page?
Web sourcesArchived/dated copy (link rot is real)Captured with an access date?

Self-running cite-check (do this before editors do)

  • Proposition ↔ source match. Read each footnote against the page it cites. If the page does not support the claim, fix the cite or soften the claim — never leave the gap.
  • Quotation accuracy. Check every quotation character-for-character against the source; verify the pincite.
  • Signal accuracy. Confirm the signal matches the relationship (see hlr-sources-and-bluebook).
  • Short-form integrity. After any footnote reordering, re-verify every Id. and supra — these break silently when notes move.
  • No orphan or dead cites. Every footnote resolves; no broken cross-references or rotted URLs.

Checklist

  • Every text proposition has a supporting footnote, pincited to the exact page
  • Source file assembled: every source kept with the cited page marked
  • Each footnote re-read against its source page (proposition actually supported)
  • Every quotation verified character-for-character and pinned
  • Signals match relationships; short forms (Id./supra) re-verified after moves
  • Web sources archived with access dates (link rot)
  • No orphan footnotes, dead cross-references, or unsupportable claims

Anti-patterns

  • Footnotes that gesture at a source which does not actually support the proposition
  • Quotations not checked against the original (a cite-check failure that erodes trust fast)
  • Dangling Id./supra after footnotes were reordered in drafting or editing
  • Citing web sources without an archived, dated capture (link rot at proof time)
  • Leaving the source-gathering until editors ask — assemble the source file before submission

Output format

【Apparatus】every proposition footnoted + pincited? [Y/N]
【Source file】all sources kept with cited pages marked? [Y/N]
【Self cite-check】propositions match sources; quotations exact? [Y/N]
【Short forms】Id./supra re-verified after moves? [Y/N]
【Pull-ready】a stranger could verify every footnote? [Y/N]
【Next】hlr-writing-style (text/footnote balance) → hlr-submission

Supplementary resources

Signals

GitHub stars
1k
Forks
155
Last commit
Sep 2026
Advanced
Item type
skill
Key
hlr-footnotes-and-cite-check
Source
github.com/brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills