New: 98,000+ skills indexed from GitHub repos with 100+ stars · every skill safety-checkedBrowse top skillsTop skills
Esc to closeBrowse all skills
Submit a skillBrowse skills
Submit a skillBrowse skills

Official agent skill

Marketing Claims Review

by anthropics in anthropics/claude-for-legal

Review marketing copy for claims that need substantiation, reframing, or cutting.

OfficialApache-2.0Auto-check passedFrontend & Design

Install Marketing Claims Review

skills CLI
$ npx skills add anthropics/claude-for-legal --skill marketing-claims-review -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install anthropics/claude-for-legal marketing-claims-review --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/anthropics/claude-for-legal.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/product-legal/skills/marketing-claims-review .claude/skills/marketing-claims-review && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
marketing-claims-review
GitHub stars
9.6k
Used in
2 other repos
Token cost
~3.6k tokens
SKILL.md length
1,428 words
Files
1
Skills in repo
147
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
Apache-2.0

At a glance

Review marketing copy for claims that need substantiation, reframing, or cutting.

  • Works in 4 steps: Extract every claim → Classify and check → Check against the product → …
  • The user says review this marketing copy
  • SKILL.md covers Matter context, Purpose, Load standards and Research the applicable…, plus 5 more sections
  • Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md

What it does

Marketing Claims Review is an agent skill from anthropics/claude-for-legal, published by the product's own GitHub organization. Review marketing copy for claims that need substantiation, reframing, or cutting. Use when the user says "review this marketing copy", "check these claims", "can we say this", "is this puffery or a problem", or pastes marketing content (landing pages, emails, ads, taglines).

Its SKILL.md is about 3.6k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. It is a single SKILL.md file with no bundled scripts.

It sits in Frontend & Design, covering Copywriting, Landing pages and Positioning and messaging. The repository describes itself as: A suite of plugins for legal workflows. The licence is Apache-2.0.

When your agent uses it

  • The user says review this marketing copy
  • Check these claims
  • Can we say this
  • Is this puffery

Example prompts

  • “review this marketing copy”
  • “check these claims”
  • “can we say this”
  • “/marketing-claims-review”

Workflow steps

4 steps, taken from the step headings in SKILL.md.

  1. Extract every claim
  2. Classify and check
  3. Check against the product
  4. Output

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 4a6c651. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    No scripts in the folder and no shell commands in SKILL.md (its code samples are markdown).

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md.

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Marketing Claims Review loads about 3.6k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 75 tokens; SKILL.md has 1,428 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~75
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~3.6k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from anthropics/claude-for-legal at commit 4a6c651, republished under its Apache-2.0 licence (© anthropics). 1,428 words, ~3,644 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/marketing-claims-review/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).
name
marketing-claims-review
description
Review marketing copy for claims that need substantiation, reframing, or cutting. Use when the user says "review this marketing copy", "check these claims", "can we say this", "is this puffery or a problem", or pastes marketing content (landing pages, emails, ads, taglines).
argument-hint
[paste copy, or file path]

/marketing-claims-review

  1. Load ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/product-legal/CLAUDE.md → Marketing claims standards.
  2. Apply the claim taxonomy and review workflow below.
  3. Extract every claim. Classify: puffery / factual / comparative / implied / absolute.
  4. For each non-puffery claim: substantiation check, suggested fix.
  5. Output: claim-by-claim with calls, suggested revision if short enough.
/product-legal:marketing-claims-review
[paste landing page copy]

Matter context

Matter context. Check ## Matter workspaces in the practice-level CLAUDE.md. If Enabled is ✗ (the default for in-house users), skip the rest of this paragraph — skills use practice-level context and the matter machinery is invisible. If enabled and there is no active matter, ask: "Which matter is this for? Run /product-legal:matter-workspace switch <slug> or say practice-level." Load the active matter's matter.md for matter-specific context and overrides. Write outputs to the matter folder at ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/product-legal/matters/<matter-slug>/. Never read another matter's files unless Cross-matter context is on.

Purpose

Marketing wants to say the product is the best. Legal needs it to be true, or at least not provably false. This skill finds the claims that will get a demand letter from a competitor or an inquiry from a regulator, and suggests how to keep the energy while fixing the exposure.

Load standards

Read ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/product-legal/CLAUDE.md → ## Marketing claims:

  • Comparative claims policy (allowed with substantiation / discouraged / never)
  • Substantiation standard (what's required before a claim ships)
  • Common rejected claims (learn from history)

Research the applicable standards before clearing copy

Research the currently operative advertising and substantiation standards for the applicable jurisdictions and media (for example, FTC, NAD, state UDAP regimes, sector regulators for healthcare / financial / children's products, and platform-specific policies). Identify what substantiation the specific claim requires — who measured it, when, sample size, apples-to-apples basis — not just whether some substantiation exists on file. Flag implied claims and comparative claims for heightened scrutiny. Verify currency: endorsement and review guides have been updated recently and continue to evolve. Cite primary sources with pinpoint references. If you cannot verify the current standard, flag for attorney verification — do not state a rule you haven't confirmed.

Only cite the standards that apply to the specific claims under review. A blanket list of every FTC guideline, NAD practice note, or sector rule makes the load-bearing ones invisible. Do not cite the Endorsement Guides (16 CFR Part 255) unless the copy contains an endorsement, testimonial, or influencer content. Do not cite disclosure-overlay rules unless a claim in the asset triggers the overlay. Do not cite a sector regulator unless the copy targets or implicates that sector. A standard earns its place in the output by mapping to a specific quoted claim; otherwise drop it.

No silent supplement. If a research query to the configured legal research tool returns few or no results for the applicable standard (FTC rule, NAD decision, state UDAP, sector rule, platform policy), report what was found and stop. Do NOT fill the gap from web search or model knowledge without asking. Say: "The search returned [N] results from [tool]. Coverage appears thin for [standard / jurisdiction]. Options: (1) broaden the search query, (2) try a different research tool, (3) search the web — results will be tagged [web search — verify] and should be checked against the issuing authority before relying, or (4) flag as unverified and stop. Which would you like?" A lawyer decides whether to accept lower-confidence sources.

Source attribution tiering. Tag every citation with its source. For model-knowledge citations, use one of three tiers rather than a single blanket "verify" tag:

  • [settled] — stable, well-known statutory and regulatory references unlikely to have changed (e.g., FTC Act § 5, Lanham Act § 43(a) as a concept). Still verify before approving copy, but lower priority.
  • [verify] — model-knowledge citations that are real but should be verified: specific FTC enforcement actions, NAD decisions, state UDAP statutes, sector-specific rules, platform policies, case holdings, thresholds, effective dates, recent updates (the Endorsement Guides and disclosure rules update frequently).
  • [verify-pinpoint] — pinpoint citations (specific subsection letters, CFR subpart references, case paragraph numbers) carry the highest fabrication risk and should ALWAYS be verified against a primary source.

Tool-retrieved citations keep their source tag ([Westlaw], [CourtListener], [FTC site], [NAD], [platform policy], or the MCP tool name); web-search citations remain [web search — verify]; user-supplied citations (from substantiation files) remain [user provided]. The tiering surfaces the real verification work — a reader who verifies everything verifies nothing. Never strip or collapse the tags.

Claim taxonomy

The categories below are structural patterns the reviewer should be able to recognize. Whether a given phrase is actionable depends on the currently operative rule in the applicable jurisdiction, the specific substantiation available, and the audience — research that before concluding.

Vague / subjective claims

Subjective assertions with no measurable content. Whether they are actionable depends on jurisdiction, context, and audience — research before concluding.

Example
"The best way to manage your projects"
"You'll love it"
"Revolutionary"
Specific factual claims

Measurable, specific, a reasonable person might rely on it.

ExampleSubstantiation to look for
"50% faster than [competitor]"Benchmark data, disclosed methodology, date
"Trusted by 10,000 companies"Actual count (not cumulative signups — currently trusted)
"Saves 5 hours per week"Study or customer data, disclosed sample
"Enterprise-grade security"What does that mean? SOC 2? Spell it out or it's a promise
"HIPAA compliant"BAA available, actually configured for it — this is a contractual promise
Show full SKILL.md (575 more words)Show less
Comparative claims (heightened scrutiny)

Naming a competitor or implying one. Research the applicable rules for comparative advertising in the relevant jurisdictions and media before clearing.

ExampleFix pattern
"Faster than Slack"Either name Slack with head-to-head data you can defend, or abstract to "faster than legacy chat tools" with substantiation
"The only platform that does X"False if anyone else does X — "The first platform to..." (if true) or drop "only"
"[Competitor] can't do this"Show your feature. Let the viewer compare.

Per ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/product-legal/CLAUDE.md — if comparative claims are "never," flag all of them. If "allowed with substantiation," check for the substantiation.

Implied claims

Not stated outright but a reasonable reader infers it. Research the treatment of implied claims under the applicable advertising regime — implied claims often carry the same substantiation burden as express ones.

ExampleImplicationFix
"Finally, a secure alternative"Competitors are insecure"Finally, security you can verify"
Customer logos without contextThese companies endorse us"Customers include..." is fine; "Trusted by..." implies more
"Built for healthcare"HIPAA compliantClarify or qualify
Absolute claims

No room for error. One counter-example makes them false. Research whether qualifications cure the issue in the applicable jurisdiction.

ExampleFix pattern
"Never goes down""99.9% uptime" (with SLA that defines it)
"100% accurate"A specific, substantiated percentage tied to a benchmark
"Guaranteed"Only if you actually offer a guarantee with terms — this creates warranty exposure
"Always" / "Every""Typically" / "Most"

The review

Step 1: Extract every claim

Read the copy. List every sentence or phrase that asserts a fact, makes a comparison, or promises something. Ignore pure puffery in the list.

Step 2: Classify and check

For each claim:

markdown
**Claim:** "[exact quote]"
**Type:** [Specific factual | Comparative | Implied | Absolute]
**Substantiation on file:** [Yes — link | No | Unknown]
**Call:** [✅ Fine | ⚠️ Needs substantiation | ⚠️ Needs rewording | 🔴 Cut]
**Suggested fix:** "[alternative phrasing that keeps the energy]"
**Why:** [one line]
Step 3: Check against the product

Does the product actually do what the copy says? Not a philosophical question — check the PRD or ask the PM.

Common drift: marketing copy written from an early spec, product changed, nobody updated the copy.

Step 4: Output

Prepend the work-product header from ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/product-legal/CLAUDE.md ## Outputs (it differs by user role — see ## Who's using this).

markdown
[WORK-PRODUCT HEADER — per plugin config ## Outputs]

# Marketing Review: [Campaign/Asset name]

**Reviewed:** [date]
**Asset:** [landing page / email / ad / etc.]

---

## Summary

[N] claims reviewed. [N]✅ [N]⚠️ [N]🔴

**Ready to ship:** [Yes | With changes below | No — rewrite needed]

> **Before emitting "Ready to ship: Yes" (i.e., approving a claim for external use / publication):** Read `## Who's using this` in `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/product-legal/CLAUDE.md`. If the Role is Non-lawyer:
>
> > Approving a marketing claim for publication is a legal act — once published, substantiation gaps and comparative-claim exposure become enforcement or competitor-challenge risk. Have you reviewed this with an attorney? If yes, proceed. If no, here's a brief to bring to them:
> >
> > [Generate a 1-page summary: asset, claims approved, claim types (specific factual / comparative / implied / absolute), substantiation on file for each, any implied claims flagged, and the three things to ask the attorney before the copy goes live.]
> >
> > If you need to find a lawyer: your professional regulator's referral service is the fastest starting point (state bar in the US; SRA/Bar Standards Board in England & Wales; Law Society in Scotland/NI/Ireland/Canada/Australia; or your jurisdiction's equivalent).
>
> Do not proceed past this gate to "Ready to ship: Yes" without an explicit yes. "With changes below" and "No — rewrite needed" do not require the gate — those are review calls, not approvals.

---

## Claim-by-claim

[All the claim blocks from Step 2, grouped: 🔴 first, then ⚠️, then ✅]

---

## Suggested revision

[For short assets — under 50 words, or a tweet, headline, one-liner, tagline, short ad — the output in this block is the actual revised copy with the fixes applied inline, not a description of what changed. The reader should be able to copy-paste this block into the asset.
For longer assets (>50 words but <300 words), show the revised copy with fixes applied inline.
For longer assets (300+ words), summarize the changes as a bulleted diff ("Strip Claim 1. Rewrite Claim 3 to drop 'any.' Soften Claim 4 for regulated-domain risk.") rather than pasting the whole asset.
A meta-description of changes is never an acceptable output for a short asset — when the asset is one line, the output should BE the revised one line.]

---

## Substantiation needed before ship

| Claim | Need | From whom |
|---|---|---|
| [claim] | [data type] | [PM / data team / eng] |

---

## Citation check

Any FTC rules, NAD decisions, state UDAP statutes, sector regulations, or platform policies cited in this review were generated by an AI model and have not been verified against a primary source. Before relying on a specific rule to clear or reject copy, verify it against a legal research tool (Westlaw, CourtListener, or your firm's research platform) for accuracy and current effective date — endorsement guides, platform rules, and state UDAP regimes all update frequently. Source tags on each citation (e.g., `[FTC site]`, `[web search — verify]`) show where it came from; `verify` tags carry higher fabrication risk and should be checked first.

Disclosure overlays

Copy that involves any of the fact patterns below sits inside an additional disclosure regime. Research the currently operative disclosure requirements in the applicable jurisdictions (including any platform policies and sector-specific rules) and verify currency — these regimes are updated frequently.

  • Testimonials / reviews — material connections between the speaker and the advertiser are typically disclosable; research the current form and placement rules
  • Influencer content — research the current tagging, clarity, and conspicuousness requirements for the channel and audience
  • "Results may vary" / atypical results — research whether a disclosure (and what form) is required when shown results aren't representative
  • Free trial / auto-renewal / negative option — research the current conspicuousness and consent requirements for auto-conversion terms

Close with the next-steps decision tree

End with the next-steps decision tree per CLAUDE.md ## Outputs. Customize the options to what this skill just produced — the five default branches (draft the X, escalate, get more facts, watch and wait, something else) are a starting point, not a lock-in. The tree is the output; the lawyer picks.

What this skill does not do

  • It doesn't write the marketing. It fixes what's wrong with it. The suggested rewrites keep the energy, but the marketer owns the voice.
  • It doesn't substantiate claims. It identifies which ones need it and who has the data.
  • It doesn't review design or imagery — words only. If an image implies a claim (competitor logo with a red X through it), flag it, but visual review is a human judgment.

© anthropics, Apache-2.0. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

Just SKILL.md in product-legal/skills/marketing-claims-review of anthropics/claude-for-legal.

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 4a6c651

Used in 2 other repositories

We found 2 copies of this SKILL.md (exact, near-identical or edited) in other folders, from 2 other GitHub owners. This page covers the copy in anthropics/claude-for-legal, which our catalogue first saw on October 7, 2026.

Compare with similar skills

Marketing Claims Review next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Marketing Claims Review compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Marketing Claims Review this skillanthropics/claude-for-legal9.6k2 repos~3.6kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Landing Page Copywriterjulianromli/ai-skills1912 repos~1.4kAutomated safety check: PassNone
Landing Page GTM Copyooiyeefei/ccc495—~1.8kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Arabic Copy Localizergrowthack88/growth-marketing-os116—~1kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Marketing Copyscarletkc/agents226—~1.3kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Cashclaw Landing Pageertugrulakben/cashclaw303—~2.7kAutomated safety check: PassMIT

Similar skills

  • Landing Page Copywriter

    julianromli/ai-skills

    Write high-converting landing page copy using proven frameworks like PAS (Problem-Agitate-Solution), AIDA, and StoryBrand.

    191 GitHub starsUsed in 2 repos~1.4k tokens
    Frontend & DesignAuto-check passed

  • Landing Page GTM Copy

    ooiyeefei/ccc

    Builds or rewrites SaaS landing pages by researching the real product, positioning it against alternatives and writing buyer-focused copy, then implementing it in the codebase.

    495 GitHub stars~1.8k tokensUpdated 2 mo ago
    Marketing & SEOAuto-check passed

  • Arabic Copy Localizer

    growthack88/growth-marketing-os

    Marketing copy localization skill that converts English marketing copy (ads, landing pages, emails, CTAs) into native Egyptian Arabic عامية — or GCC dialect on request — with natural English…

    116 GitHub stars~1k tokensUpdated yesterday
    Frontend & DesignAuto-check passed

  • Marketing Copy

    scarletkc/agents

    Write outbound promotional copy for a product or project: launch and update posts for community platforms and social media, store page descriptions and short blurbs, landing page headlines and calls…

    226 GitHub stars~1.3k tokensUpdated 19 days ago
    Frontend & DesignAuto-check passed

  • Cashclaw Landing Page

    ertugrulakben/cashclaw

    Creates high-converting landing page copy and responsive HTML with proven frameworks.

    303 GitHub stars~2.7k tokensUpdated 5 days ago
    Frontend & DesignAuto-check passed

  • Viral Product Evaluator

    luongnv89/skills

    Review a product codebase and landing page against 32 viral principles and produce a Virality Score plus ranked fixes.

    131 GitHub stars~2.8k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Frontend & DesignAuto-check passed

More from anthropics/claude-for-legal

All 147 skills in this repo

  • Legal Clinic Client Intake

    anthropics/claude-for-legal

    Official

    Structures a legal clinic client intake interview and produces a case summary with cross-area issue spotting, conflict flags and triage classification.

    9.6k GitHub starsUsed in 3 repos~3.2k tokens
    Auto-check passed

  • Supervisor Review Queue

    anthropics/claude-for-legal

    Official

    Holds student work in a queue for a legal clinic professor to approve, edit-then-approve or return before anything reaches clients or courts.

    9.6k GitHub starsUsed in 3 repos~1.1k tokens
    Auto-check passed

  • Tabular Document Review

    anthropics/claude-for-legal

    Official

    Builds a review grid with one row per document and one column per data point, each cell cited to a verbatim quote, built for M&A diligence and other batch reviews.

    9.6k GitHub starsUsed in 3 repos~4.3k tokens
    Auto-check passed

  • Product Launch Legal Review

    anthropics/claude-for-legal

    Official

    Runs a category-by-category legal review of a product launch from a PRD or tracker ticket, calibrated to your team's framework, and writes a review memo in house format.

    9.6k GitHub starsUsed in 2 repos~5k tokens
    Auto-check passed

  • Legal Skills Registry Browser

    anthropics/claude-for-legal

    Official

    Searches watched registries for community legal skills, shows matches with descriptions and offers the full SKILL.md before anything is installed.

    9.6k GitHub starsUsed in 2 repos~620 tokens
    Auto-check passed

  • Contract Renewal Tracker

    anthropics/claude-for-legal

    Official

    Shows which contracts renew soon and when notice must be sent by, working from a maintained renewal register, and warns about missed cancellation windows.

    9.6k GitHub starsUsed in 2 repos~3.1k tokens
    Auto-check passed

Categories

Questions about Marketing Claims Review

What does Marketing Claims Review do?

Review marketing copy for claims that need substantiation, reframing, or cutting. Marketing Claims Review is an agent skill from anthropics/claude-for-legal, published by the product's own GitHub organization. Review marketing copy for claims that need substantiation, reframing, or cutting.

When should I use Marketing Claims Review?

Marketing Claims Review fits situations like: the user says review this marketing copy; check these claims; can we say this; is this puffery.

How do I install Marketing Claims Review in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add anthropics/claude-for-legal --skill marketing-claims-review -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (product-legal/skills/marketing-claims-review in anthropics/claude-for-legal) into .claude/skills/marketing-claims-review in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Marketing Claims Review in Codex?

Run `npx skills add anthropics/claude-for-legal --skill marketing-claims-review -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (product-legal/skills/marketing-claims-review in anthropics/claude-for-legal) into .agents/skills/marketing-claims-review in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Marketing Claims Review in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add anthropics/claude-for-legal --skill marketing-claims-review -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/marketing-claims-review, .gemini/skills/marketing-claims-review, .github/skills/marketing-claims-review and .opencode/skills/marketing-claims-review in your project.

What does Marketing Claims Review need to run?

SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Marketing Claims Review is instructions for the agent only.

Does Marketing Claims Review access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Any network use would come from the scripts or tools the agent runs. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Marketing Claims Review safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does Marketing Claims Review use?

Marketing Claims Review is published under the Apache-2.0 licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Marketing Claims Review use?

About 3.6k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 15k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.

What are the alternatives to Marketing Claims Review?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Marketing Claims Review: Landing Page Copywriter (julianromli/ai-skills, 191 stars), Landing Page GTM Copy (ooiyeefei/ccc, 495 stars), Arabic Copy Localizer (growthack88/growth-marketing-os, 116 stars) and Marketing Copy (scarletkc/agents, 226 stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Marketing Claims Review?

anthropics (a GitHub organization, an official publisher) maintains it in anthropics/claude-for-legal, which has 9,633 GitHub stars. The repository holds 147 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on September 29, 2026.

Source: anthropics/claude-for-legal on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.