本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

case-summary

Produces an attorney-ready memo from a corpus of legal documents supplied by the user. Use when a user shows up with a folder, zip, or vault of case documents and asks for a case summary, case evaluation, litigation package, intake memo, matter overview, or "can you summarize this case for me." The skill ingests the corpus into a searchable index, OCRs anything non-searchable, inventories and diagnoses the practice area, loads the appropriate practice-area playbook module(s) (PI/tort, commercial litigation, IP infringement, or user-authored extensions), iteratively searches the corpus across eight core dimensions plus any module-specific dimensions, defers specialized document clusters (depositions, medical records, discovery, liens) to dedicated sibling skills, and synthesizes a cited memo.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(22)

  • SKILL.md10.2 KB
  • assets/examples/corpus-pi-tort/answer-Grocer.md3.2 KB
  • assets/examples/corpus-pi-tort/billing-ledger-Rivera.md5.6 KB
  • assets/examples/corpus-pi-tort/complaint-Rivera-v-Grocer.md3.4 KB
  • assets/examples/corpus-pi-tort/deposition-excerpt-manager.md5.4 KB
  • assets/examples/corpus-pi-tort/ems-run-sheet-Rivera.md2.5 KB
  • assets/examples/corpus-pi-tort/er-record-Rivera-2024-02-15.md3.4 KB
  • assets/examples/corpus-pi-tort/incident-report-store-0147.md3.1 KB
  • assets/examples/MANIFEST.md4.5 KB
  • assets/examples/memo-commercial-contract.md14.1 KB
  • assets/examples/memo-pi-tort.md15.6 KB
  • LICENSE.txt10.5 KB
  • references/BACKENDS.md4.4 KB
  • references/CORE-DIMENSIONS.md5.5 KB
  • references/OUTPUT-TEMPLATE.md4.4 KB
  • references/PLAYBOOK-AUTHORING.md5.6 KB
  • references/PLAYBOOK-COMMERCIAL-LITIGATION.md8.2 KB
  • references/PLAYBOOK-IP-INFRINGEMENT.md10.1 KB
  • references/PLAYBOOK-PI-TORT.md8.5 KB
  • references/ROUTING.md4.8 KB
  • references/SEARCH-PLAYBOOK.md4.5 KB
  • references/WORKFLOW.md6.9 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Case Summary

A user arrives with a pile of legal documents — often hundreds or thousands — and asks for a summary. This skill is the playbook for doing that well, across any practice area.

The work is map-reduce: map the corpus across the dimensions that matter, reduce the hits into a memo. The skill does not prescribe a specific search tool — it describes the work. references/BACKENDS.md lists concrete implementations the agent can use today.

The core describes what every case has (parties, timeline, evidence, claims, exposure, defenses, procedural status, red flags). Practice-area playbooks (references/PLAYBOOK-*.md) specialize the core for specific domains. Specialized document types (depositions, medicals, discovery, liens) route out to dedicated sibling skills per references/ROUTING.md.


Related skills

  • case-chronology — when the deliverable is a dated timeline rather than a full memo
  • case-intake-initial-fact-memo — for commercial-litigation intake memos
  • case-viability-report — for go/no-go screening before accepting a matter
  • pi-demand-summary — when the objective is a PI settlement package, not a case evaluation
  • demand-letter — when the objective is a pre-suit demand letter
  • deposition-summary — for deposition transcripts; route per ROUTING.md
  • discovery-summary — for interrogatory/RFP/RFA responses; route per ROUTING.md
  • medical-record-chronology — for dense medical-records sets; route per ROUTING.md
  • medical-treatment-summary — for causation-focused treatment narratives
  • evidence-liability-summary — for plaintiff-side liability element breakdowns
  • lien-resolution-summary — for post-settlement lien tracking
  • legal-strategy-summary — for motion-and-discovery roadmap deliverables
  • settlement-summarization — for post-memo settlement activity

Checkpoint A: pre-ingest intake (mandatory)

Ask every time unless the user says "use defaults" or "just go." Gather:

  1. Practice area guess — PI, commercial, IP, regulatory, criminal, family, bankruptcy, etc. The agent can update this after Inventory, but a guess narrows the initial playbook loader.
  2. Expected document types — pleadings, discovery, depositions, medicals, contracts, corporate records.
  3. Custodians / sources — who produced the files, and in what posture (client production, opposing-counsel production, third-party subpoena).
  4. Date range — anchor the timeline.
  5. User objective — evaluation memo, viability screen, demand prep, settlement prep, strategy roadmap. Different objectives trigger different sibling skills per ROUTING.md.
  6. Privilege posture — work-product only, attorney-client privileged, or litigation-ready.
  7. Venue / jurisdiction — affects SOL, statutory-notice requirements, governing law.

Defaults (if the user doesn't answer): PI/tort playbook; evaluation memo; attorney work-product; U.S. state-court posture. Label every default explicitly in the memo header.


The loop

1. Ingest. Put the corpus into something searchable. See references/WORKFLOW.md for the phase description and references/BACKENDS.md for implementations.

2. OCR. Any PDF that isn't already searchable will not be indexed usefully. Handle OCR before searching on files that need it. Asynchronous — keep moving.

3. Inventory. Pull the object list. Skim filenames to build a mental model: what practice area, what kinds of documents, how many of each. This is the only time the agent cares about every file.

4. Diagnose practice area. From the inventory plus a single global-overview query, pick one or more playbook modules from references/PLAYBOOK-*.md. Each has triggers in its frontmatter that match filenames and content signals. Record the choice in the memo header. When no module fits, proceed core-only and note it.

5. Map — iterative search per dimension. For each of the eight core dimensions in references/CORE-DIMENSIONS.md:

  • Run the base queries from references/SEARCH-PLAYBOOK.md.
  • Run the module queries from each loaded playbook for that dimension.
  • Read the top 3–10 chunks per query. Cite everything the memo will rely on by object name + page.
  • Where the corpus contains specialized document clusters (≥1 full deposition, dense medical records set, discovery responses, lien correspondence), delegate per references/ROUTING.md and consume the sibling skill's output rather than summarizing inline.

Don't brute-force read every file. Drive the search with focused queries, pull the 3–10 most relevant chunks per query, follow up when hits are load-bearing, route when a cluster warrants a sibling skill.

6. Reduce — synthesize. Assemble the memo using references/OUTPUT-TEMPLATE.md's core skeleton, plus the output sections contributed by each loaded playbook. Every claim cites an object + page (or chunk ID). No citation = cut or label as assumption.

7. Review. Run the quality checklist below (core items + playbook-specific items). Flag any unsatisfied items.


Checkpoint B: post-memo alignment (mandatory)

After delivering the draft, ask:

  1. Did the right playbook module(s) get loaded? (List them.)
  2. Which sibling skills were invoked, and did their outputs get integrated correctly?
  3. Are there coverage gaps — dimensions the agent couldn't populate from the corpus?
  4. Any claims in the memo that depend on unverified legal citations flagged [VERIFY]?
  5. Is attorney review explicitly required before any downstream use?

If the user doesn't answer, default to: list the loaded playbooks and invoked siblings; flag any dimension that returned "no evidence found"; require attorney review.


What this skill does not do

  • It does not value the case. Ranges belong in the memo when a loaded playbook supplies the methodology, but the skill doesn't substitute for attorney judgment about jurisdiction, venue, or negotiation posture.
  • It does not resolve liens, draft pleadings, or send demands. It identifies them and routes to the sibling skill that does.
  • It does not replace an attorney review of the final memo. Always label the memo AI-generated and require sign-off.

Scale notes

  • < 20 files: skip the search loop; read every document directly. See references/BACKENDS.md small-corpus recipe.
  • 20–200 files: one pass through the search playbook, one memo. ~1 hour.
  • 200–2,000 files: expect 40–80 targeted searches across the dimensions, checkpoint notes as the agent goes. Multi-hour run.
  • 2,000+ files: expect 100+ targeted queries; tighten scoping with module-specific filters and entity-mode searches; budget multi-hour run time. One corpus — the agent works it harder, not by fragmenting it.

Core quality checklist

Every matter:

  • Every file is either searched-over or explicitly noted as out-of-scope
  • Every OCR job finished (or its absence is noted in the memo)
  • Parties, venue, posture correct with citations
  • Timeline continuous; gaps >30 days flagged
  • Each claim element has at least one evidentiary citation or explicit gap note
  • Each asserted defense has supporting-evidence citation or a "pled without support" note
  • Exposure/remedies section shows methodology, not an attorney valuation
  • Red flags section is honest, not decorative — each item names a next action
  • Every claim in the memo traces to an object + page or is labeled an assumption
  • Unverified statutes/rules/cases marked [VERIFY]
  • Memo labeled AI-generated, requires attorney review

Plus every playbook-specific item from each loaded PLAYBOOK-*.md's Quality checklist section.


Troubleshooting

  • OCR didn't run on a file. The file isn't searchable. Record the file in the memo's out-of-scope list, try a different OCR engine if the backend supports one, or ask the user to re-upload a text-searchable version.
  • Search returns noise, not relevant hits. Run a global-overview query first to discover the vocabulary the documents use; re-issue targeted queries using that vocabulary. Narrow with keyword anchors (party names, dates, case numbers) once known.
  • Practice area ambiguous; no playbook fits cleanly. Proceed core-only (core dimensions + SEARCH-PLAYBOOK.md base queries). Note the ambiguity in VIII Strengths / Weaknesses / Red Flags. Offer the user a recommendation to narrow.
  • Wrong playbook picked. Re-enter step 4 (Diagnose practice area) with the new information. Load the correct module; keep hits from the previous pass that still apply.
  • Corpus too large for a single pass. Prioritize the dimensions that matter for the user's stated objective. Run a triage pass (parties, posture, top 3 claims, headline exposure) first, then expand to full coverage if time allows. Surface to the user which dimensions are deep vs. triage in the memo header.
  • Sibling skill unavailable or returns nothing useful. Note it in the memo header (Sibling skills invoked), record the cluster the agent wanted to route, and summarize the cluster inline with reduced depth. Attorney review should consider whether a focused sibling-skill run is warranted before the memo is used downstream.
  • Multi-matter corpus (the folder mixes unrelated cases). Surface to the user before proceeding. The skill summarizes one matter at a time; don't silently merge.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

中国大陆地区法院类案快速检索与《案件检索报告》(DOCX)生成技能。以案件五项要点(案由/法律关系、争议焦点、关键事实、我方诉请与诉讼地位、请求权基础法条)为检索锚点,经一次四问确认即开工(其中**检索地域范围**与**裁判时间范围**为强制选择题,默认范围为「2021年1月1日以后裁判的浙江省范围内的法院案例」,用户点选默认后须回显该范围提示);按**请求权基础、法律关系、案件事实三要素**判定高匹配——用户**指定**检索特定结果的案例时结果相似度计入评分(四要素满分 10 分),用户**未指定**时结果相似度不作为高匹配考虑因素(三要素满分 8 分);r1 判定须**核对法条版本与时间效力**,援引已失效旧法条者不得给满分;以语义向量检索为主召回、精确结构检索为条件兜底,本地脚本加权打分后按「得分率 > 法院层级 > 审判程序 > 裁判日期」排序,并检测**同院同日同标题的重复入库**案件、疑似重复者不占入报名额;截取匹配度最高的 5–10 例类案,逐案调详情核验案号并摘录判词原文,最后直接输出含页脚页码的 DOCX 报告(默认保存至桌面)。全流程人工确认 1 次、检索类调用控制在 2 次召回 + ≤10 次详情以内,报告阶段检索冻结。未指定结果时三要素高匹配而结果相反者亦会入报(逐例标注结果方向),指定结果时结果相反者一律剔除;报告内以两处固定声明披露「未设不利先例定向检索路径」的局限。当用户要求「快速检索类似案例」「找几个正向案例」「快速版案例检索报告」「检索 5 到 10 个类案并出报告」「出一份类案检索报告 docx」时使用。需要四象限归位、反向案例定向检索、补充召回多轮迭代或 14 分制硬软条件精判时,应使用完整版技能「案例检索报告Plus」而非本技能。基于华宇元典法律数据 MCP。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

88查企业风险查询与分析工具 —— 专注于中国大陆企业的法务风险查询与分析,覆盖经营异常、行政处罚、监管措施、被执行人、失信被执行人、司法案件等风险类型。支持公司名称、统一社会信用代码、companyId 三种输入方式,自动完成风险查询并输出结构化风险分析总结。 触发场景:仅当用户意图为查询企业风险/法务风险时触发。包括但不限于:企业风险查询、公司风险、经营异常、行政处罚、监管措施、被执行人、失信被执行人、司法风险、风险扫描、风险评估、企业合规审查、风险报告、XX公司有什么风险、XX公司安全吗、XX公司有没有处罚、XX公司被执行过吗。 不触发场景:纯粹的企业信息查询(如查公司、搜企业、工商信息、注册资本、法人代表、股东结构、专利商标等)不应触发本技能,请使用其他 cha88 系列工具。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

Manages Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative deposition workflows — drafting notice topics with reasonable particularity, building examination outlines, defending designees, handling objections, and preserving binding admissions for summary judgment or trial. Use when drafting or responding to 30(b)(6) notices, selecting and preparing designees, building topic-by-topic outlines, or triaging scope and privilege disputes. Trigger keywords: 30(b)(6), corporate representative deposition, topic list, designee, notice analysis, deposition objections, corporate admissions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

Guides taking and defending Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative depositions. Drafts topic lists with reasonable particularity, builds examination outlines for binding corporate admissions, analyzes noticed topics for objections, and prepares designees. Use when drafting 30(b)(6) notices, preparing corporate deposition topics, selecting or preparing designees, or defending corporate representative depositions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

Drafts FDA 510(k) Premarket Notification submissions demonstrating substantial equivalence under 21 CFR Part 807. Supports Traditional, Special, and Abbreviated pathways. Use when preparing Class II medical device regulatory filings, substantial equivalence analyses, or FDA premarket submissions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

Drafts a recordable Abstract of Judgment to create a judgment lien on a debtor's real property. Extracts party names, monetary components, and judgment details from case documents, then applies jurisdiction-specific formatting and certification requirements. Use post-judgment in commercial litigation when enforcing monetary awards, perfecting judgment liens, or preparing lien filings with the county recorder.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

CSlawyer1985 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する