---
name: public-comment
description: "Draft a persuasive public comment on a proposed rule, regulation, or plan. Use when asked to comment on a rulemaking, respond to a consultation, submit feedback on a proposed regulation, or write a comment to an agency. Produces a structured comment: your position, specific evidence-based arguments tied to the proposal's text, suggested edits, and the impact — the kind agencies must consider on the record."
---

# Public Comment Skill

Agencies must review and respond to substantive comments — but only *substantive* ones move the needle. A
comment that cites the specific provision, brings evidence, and proposes concrete alternative language carries
far more weight than "I support/oppose this." This skill drafts that substantive comment.

## Required Inputs

Ask for these only if they aren't already provided:

- **The proposal** — the rule/regulation/plan, ideally the specific sections or docket number.
- **Your position & interest** — support, oppose, or amend; and who you are (individual, business, org — it affects standing/weight).
- **The substance** — your reasons, and any data, expertise, or real-world impact you can cite.
- **Desired outcome** — the specific change you want (kill it, delay it, amend a provision).

## Output Format

### Public comment: [rule / docket]

**Re / docket line** — the proposal and docket/reference number, and your position in one line.

**Who I am & my interest** — brief; establishes standing and why your input is relevant.

**Summary of position** — what you support/oppose/want changed, up front.

**Substantive comments** — the core. Each point:
- **Cites the specific provision** (section/paragraph) it addresses,
- **Makes the argument** with evidence (data, expertise, precedent, real-world consequence),
- **Proposes a concrete fix** — suggested alternative language or a specific change, not just objection.

Number them so the agency can respond point by point.

**Impact** — the concrete effect (cost, burden, benefit, unintended consequence) on you/your community — this is what agencies weigh.

**Conclusion & request** — restate the specific action requested; offer to provide more info.

## Quality Checks

- [ ] Each point cites the specific provision it addresses and is on-topic for the proposal
- [ ] Arguments are backed by evidence (data, expertise, precedent, concrete impact) — not just opinion
- [ ] It proposes concrete alternative language/changes, not only objections
- [ ] The real-world impact is made specific
- [ ] Position and the exact requested action are stated clearly up front and at the end

## Anti-Patterns

- [ ] Do not submit a bare "I support/oppose" — agencies weigh substance, not vote counts
- [ ] Do not argue in generalities — tie every point to the proposal's actual text
- [ ] Do not just object — propose the specific alternative you want instead
- [ ] Do not omit evidence — unsupported assertions are easy to dismiss on the record
- [ ] Do not go off-topic — comments outside the proposal's scope carry no weight

## Based On

Notice-and-comment rulemaking practice (substantive, provision-specific, evidence-based comments with proposed alternatives).
