Focusing on a single judgment, answer "what did the court find, on what basis, how does the reasoning connect to the outcome, and which points warrant further verification". Since v2.0.0 this skill has been renamed from litigation-analysis to judgment-analysis(renaming history:legal-doc-analysis → litigation-analysis → judgment-analysis). The old invocation entry is no longer used; each run completes one judgment document node and does not expand into full-case analysis.
Inputs and Scope of Responsibility
The required input is a readable judgment. The user's goals, points of focus, represented party, and audience are optional context; when no position is specified, analyze neutrally and do not assume the plaintiff is our side. A judgment can be analyzed on its own; do not demand the complaint, original evidence, or the full case file merely to begin.
- For scanned copies, first convert them into locatable text using the currently available document reading/OCR tools, retaining page numbers. Processing the same file does not constitute multi-material analysis.
- When the user provides multiple judgments and asks for each to be interpreted separately, output each independently; when cross-document comparison or integrated judgment with other evidence is requested, hand it over to
legal-case-analysisto lead. - When a judgment and attachments are provided together but only interpretation of the judgment is requested, read only the target judgment. If the target judgment is unclear, first determine the target; do not automatically scan other files in the same directory.
- When the input contains only a complaint, evidence, or trial transcript, explain that it should be redirected to comprehensive analysis; if the target Skill is unavailable, provide the applicable entry point and handover information, and do not falsely claim it has been invoked.
- When only the "The Court Holds" section or an excerpt of the operative part is available, complete the analysis of the visible portion and mark it as "partial analysis"; missing sections must not be written as undisputed or without omission.
Processing Workflow
1. Establish document positioning and source hierarchy
Record the file, case number, court, cause of action, instance level, judgment date, and readable scope. Locate by page/paragraph number; when there are no page numbers, locate by section and short quotation, and do not fabricate line numbers.
Distinguish throughout: party claims, court findings, evidence restated in the judgment, analyst inferences, and matters not mentioned. A statement in the text that "the plaintiff submitted a contract" does not mean the original contract has been reviewed; a second-instance restatement of the first instance does not mean the original first-instance judgment has been read.
Load as needed:
- First-instance judgment: read first-instance extraction rules。
- Second-instance judgment: read second-instance extraction rules。
- Judgments at other instance levels: follow this workflow, analyzing according to the roles, procedure, and operative part in the original text, and do not apply civil first-instance fields.
- Judgments relating to intellectual property and similar matters: read according to the issues domain reading questions. It only helps understand the reasoning within the text and does not provide independent conclusions on current law.
2. Reconstruct the judicial reasoning issue by issue
Correspond one by one the claims/defenses, key facts, evidence stated in the judgment, reasons for admission, rules cited by the court, application process, and conclusions. Preserve amounts, calculation methods, time conditions, allocation of burden of proof, rejected views and reasons that affect the outcome.
If the court did not explicitly summarize the issues, the analyst may summarize them and mark them as such. Explain how the decisive finding affects other issues; do not merely restate conclusions or upgrade party statements into facts.
3. Conduct bounded in-depth evaluation
Check whether the facts and reasons in the text connect, whether reasons are given for accepting or rejecting evidence, whether key defenses are addressed, whether calculations are internally consistent, and whether the reasons agree with the operative part. For every question, provide its location in the original, the observation, a possible contrary explanation, its effect, and what still needs to be verified.
- You may identify internal contradictions, reasoning that is not developed, and potential disputes in the text; "the judgment does not state it" does not mean "the court did not examine it".
- When citing statutes, judicial interpretations or cases, reproduce only what the judgment actually states, marking it "cited by the judgment; not externally verified". If the full provision is absent, do not fill it in from memory; a citation in the judgment does not itself prove that the authority remains in force or was applied correctly.
- At this stage, do not proactively search online or collect the case file, and do not provide a probability of reversal, a complete decision on appeal or retrial, a fee quote or a case-handling plan. When external legal authority must be verified or remedies assessed comprehensively, hand the questions over to
legal-case-analysis; a search-only objective may be handed to a currently available legal research Skill. - The skill does not submit, send, sign, seal or write back case status. Write to the specified output location only when the user requests file delivery, retaining the original judgment.
4. Explain the operative part and notices
Explain each part of the operative order, the persons bearing obligations, amounts, conditions for performance, litigation costs, and remedy notices in the text. Restate the time limits and triggering conditions recorded in the judgment; do not substitute the judgment date for the date of service, or use a fixed number of days from a template as the deadline for this case. Where the triggering facts are missing, mark "a specific deadline cannot be calculated from this information".
5. Deliver for the stated objective and stop at this stage
By default, deliver one In-depth Judgment Analysis. If the user requests only a client explanation or research questions, complete the necessary analysis within the text and deliver that version directly; do not require three separate files:
- Client explanation: explain the outcome and reasons in plain language, retaining uncertainty.
- Research questions requiring verification: list questions raised by the text and propositions for research, without pretending the research has already been completed.
- Visualization: use it only when it helps understanding; do not invent information merely to fill a diagram.
In material for external readers, conceal irrelevant identity-card numbers, bank account numbers and private contact details; de-identify public teaching or demonstration material according to its intended use. Retain a lawyer-review notice for material concerning remedies in a real case or external delivery.
Handover for comprehensive analysis
If further work is needed, attach a "judgment-analysis handover" section rather than creating a separate complete case report:
| Field | Content |
|---|---|
| Source | Judgment file, case number, instance level, method for locating passages in the original, and readable scope |
| Completed | Summary of the operative part, decisive issues, court findings and supporting material within the text |
| Questions requiring verification | Questions, possible contrary explanations, effects, and the case-file or research material needed |
| Not yet verified | Unread attachments, authenticity of original evidence, force of external legal authorities, and service or effective status |
| Next objective | The comprehensive assessment and position requested by the user; state plainly if no position was specified |
This stage may still be completed and the above material delivered when downstream capabilities are unavailable; do not turn "handover recommended" into "research or analysis completed". Reuse traceable conclusions from existing comprehensive analysis rather than analyzing the entire case again.
Completion checks
- Important findings, quotations, amounts and questions can all be located in the original judgment; missing material is identified.
- All operative orders and decisive issues are covered; party claims, court findings and analytical opinions are kept distinct.
- Source limitations remain explicit for second-instance quotations of the first instance and evidence restated in the judgment; no assurance is made that cited legal authorities are current.
- No unsupported success rates, deadlines, fees or comprehensive litigation decisions are generated; research questions are not presented as research results.
- The delivered version matches the user's request; reading an excerpt is not presented as completing analysis of the whole judgment.
Dependencies
Analysis of readable text requires no scripts or third-party packages. Conversion of scanned judgments depends on the reading/OCR tools currently available; explain any gap when those tools are unavailable. Standalone judgment analysis does not depend on installing other Skills; comprehensive assessment and research are subsequent entry points used as needed.
Maintenance notes
When adding domain reading questions, follow the domain extension boundaries; do not put a new comprehensive business workflow back into this stage.