SuperAPI AI Directory
Partner中文AI newsFavorites
Skillsclaim-chart

claim-chart

Office & productivity

View repository

Updated 10-15 15:15

About this skill

/claim-chart
  1. Load ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal-zh/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md → role, work product header, decision posture, document storage.
  2. If a case workspace is enabled, confirm or select the active case; load matter.md(stance, jurisdiction, stage, case theory, pleadings).
  3. Follow the workflow and reference materials below.
  4. Mode selection:
    • --patent → patent claim chart. Requires a patent number and at least one asserted claim. Sub-modes:--infringement(infringement),--invalidity(invalidity),--review(examination).
    • --civil → civil elements analysis chart. Requires the claim (or defense) and stance.
    • No marker → ask the user which to choose.
  5. Civil mode: reference references/element-templates.md in the skill directory to obtain the baseline elements list. Before mapping, confirm the controlling legal basis (statute or judicial interpretation) with the user.
  6. Patent mode: parse the asserted claims into elements, flag disputed terms requiring construction, and apply any existing claim construction rulings.
  7. Map the elements to the target (accused infringing product/prior art/evidence materials/chart under examination). Attach a precise citation to each cell. Before writing any cell value beginning with =、+、-、@, a tab, or a carriage return, apply a single-quote prefix escape.
  8. Produce a gap list (civil) or evidence-needed list (patent)—the priority output.
  9. Write to Markdown, CSV, and Excel or Sheets per user preference. Attach a work product header to each output.
  10. If there is an active case, write to the case's claim-charts/ folder; otherwise write to the practice-level claim-charts/ folder. If there is an active case, append a row to history.md。
  11. Return a summary: claim, target, jurisdiction, stage, element count by status, gap list, file paths, and a reminder that each cell is an investigative lead.
Elements Analysis Chart (Claim Chart)

An analysis chart is a draft, not a finding or contention

Place it at the top of every output. Do not omit.

This analysis chart is a draft for attorney analysis and verification, not a filed contention, brief, opening statement, or legal opinion. Each mapping is an investigative lead that the attorney must verify against the source. The listed elements come from the parsing of statutory provisions, judicial interpretations, or claims—thecontrollinglegal basis in the applicable jurisdiction may differ and always prevails. Gap detection is the starting point for evidence gathering or litigation motions; it is not a legal conclusion about the facts of the case.

The risk of under-flagging a gap is a one-way door—a lack of factual support for an element at filing, no evidence for a contention at cross-examination, inability to prove damages at trial. Over-flagging a gap is a two-way door—the attorney clears the flag during review. Default to the two-way door.

Case Context

Check ## Matter workspacesin the practice-level CLAUDE.md. If Enabled is ✗, skip this section. If enabled and there is no active case, ask: "Which case is this for?" Load the active case's matter.md. Write output to the case folder.

Mode Selection

Before anything else, ask first:

Which type of analysis table?

  1. Patent Claim Chart— claim elements mapped element by element to the accused infringing product (--infringement), prior art (--invalidity), or a third-party analysis table (--review）。
  2. Civil Elements Analysis Table— the constituent elements of the claim (or defense) mapped to evidence. Used for pre-filing review, evidence planning, and trial preparation.

Common Information Gathering:

  • Position. Claimant or defendant?
  • Jurisdiction/Court. Province/municipality and court—applicable law and judicial interpretations may vary by region.
  • Stage. Pre-filing, evidence, trial, appeal.
  • Existing analysis table? If it is --review, load it.
Mode One — Patent Claim Chart

Sub-modes

  • --infringement — Claim elements vs. accused infringing product
  • --invalidity — Claim elements vs. prior art (Patent Law Article 22 novelty/inventiveness [法条原文]）
  • --review — Review an analysis table prepared by another party

Patent Mode Workflow

Step 1: Parse the Claims

Parse the asserted independent claim into numbered elements.

  • Preamble. Note whether it has a limiting effect.
  • Transitional phrase. "Comprising" (open-ended) / "consisting of" (closed).
  • Elementsseparated by commas/semicolons, numbered [1a]、[1b]、[1c]. Keep the numbering stable—it is the skeleton of the analysis table.
  • Functional limitations (relevant provisions of the Guidelines for Patent Examination): Each "means for [function]"—the scope is the structures disclosed in the specification plus equivalents.
  • Dependent claims—reference the parent claim; analyze only the additional technical features.

Show the parsing results to the user. Confirm before mapping. An incorrect parsing will contaminate every row below.

Step 2: Claim Construction Check

Flag disputed terms:

  • Terms defined in the specification or coined terms
  • Terms amended, argued, or surrendered in the prosecution history
  • Functional language ("configured to," "adapted to," "operable to")
  • Relative terms ("substantially," "about")—clarity risk

For each flagged term, explain under which construction the mapping holds and under which construction it does not.

Step 3: Mapping

For each element, each target:

  1. Find the evidence. Cite the source and pinpoint the location.

  2. Quote verbatim. Character for character. Do not paraphrase.

  3. Characterize the mapping type:

    Mapping Meaning
    字面 The claim language directly covers the accused feature/prior art disclosure
    等同 Function-way-result substantially the same or insubstantial differences (infringement mode)
    部分 Some elements are present
    未找到 The element does not exist
    需要证据 The available materials are insufficient to determine
    依赖于权利要求解释 Depends on the interpretation of the disputed term

  4. The status of each cell——已映射 / 已映射-等同 / 部分 / 未找到 / 需要证据 / 依赖于权利要求解释。

Step 4: Dependent claims — perform, do not state orally

For each asserted dependent claim, produce an actual analysis row.Produce rows, not placeholder statements that it "should be analyzed".

Step 5: Indirect infringement, joint infringement, etc.

Flag, do not opine:

  • Indirect infringement (inducement, contributory)
  • Joint infringement (Civil Code Article 1168 [法条原文]）
  • Willful infringement

Step 6: Threshold for invalidity (invalidity mode only)

  • Novelty (Patent Law Article 22, Paragraph 2 [法条原文]): all technical features are disclosed in a single reference
  • Inventiveness (Patent Law Article 22, Paragraph 3 [法条原文]): prominent substantive features and notable progress (invention) / substantive features and progress (utility model)
  • Clarity (Patent Law Article 26, Paragraphs 3-4 [法条原文]）
  • Amendment beyond scope (Patent Law Article 33 [法条原文]）
Mode Two — Civil Elements Analysis Table

Map the constituent elements of the claim (or defense) to the evidence. The core output is (a) an analysis table showing what evidence corresponds to what element and (b) a gap list telling the lawyer what is missing.

Workflow

Step 1: Identify the claim

  • What claim? (Or defense?) If there are multiple, analyze each separately.
  • Which party? The plaintiff's basis for the claim, the defendant's defense.
  • Which jurisdiction? Province/municipality and court.The constituent elements and legal basis vary by jurisdiction.
  • Which pleading? Load the complaint/answer so the analysis table tracks what was actually asserted.

Step 2: Load the constituent elements

  • (a) Extract from the legal basis. Identify the applicable legal provisions or judicial interpretations and parse them into numbered elements.
  • (b) Custom. User-defined elements, or paste the legal provision/judicial interpretation/pleading content for parsing.
  • (c) Defense grounds. Also supports mapping of defense elements such as statute of limitations, exemptions, and comparative fault.

Confirm the element list with the user before mapping. If the user's jurisdiction has specific judicial guidance (e.g., a provincial high court's guidance opinion), proactively raise it.

Step 3: Mapping

For each element:

  • Supporting evidence—what proves this element? Cite the source precisely.
  • Verbatim quotation(testimony or documentary evidence). Do not paraphrase.
  • Contrary evidence—what points the other way? Cite it.
  • Strength——强 / 中等 / 弱 / 无。
  • The status of each cell——已支撑 / 部分 / 有争议 / 缺口 / 需要举证。

Step 4: Gap detection — core output

After mapping is complete, produce a gap list. This is the point of the analysis table.

Elements with weak or no evidence: [list]

  • If you are the asserting party: these gaps may affect whether your claim can succeed.
  • If you are the defending party: these are your breakthrough points—the asserting party bears the burden of proving each element; one gap is one defense.
  • If this is the evidence presentation stage: these are your priority evidence presentation directions.

Step 5: Stage-Aware Framework

  • Pre-filing. Does each element have sufficient factual support to make it reasonable?
  • Evidence presentation stage. For each 缺口 or 需要举证 element—what evidence is needed?
  • Trial preparation. Order of evidence presentation, which evidence proves which element, who bears the burden of proof.
Shared Framework (Two Modes)

Output

Preset ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal-zh/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md ## Outputs work product header.

Markdown Table (Always Output)

One table per claim/defense/patent claim per target.

| [#] | 要件（逐字） | 证据支撑（精确引用） | 相反证据 | 强度 | 状态 | 已核实 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 合同成立 | [证据3, MSA §1] | 无 | 强 | 已支撑 | ☐ |
| 2 | 原告履行 | [声明 ¶ 4-9] | [质证意见] | 中 | 有争议 | ☐ |

Following attachments:

  • Gap list—Priority output
  • Summary of strongest elements, weakest elements
  • Conclusion line—"This skill does not draw conclusions." Elements supported: [list]. Elements requiring evidence/in a gap state: [list].

CSV (Always Output)

Two files per analysis table:

  • [slug].csv — values
  • [slug]_sources.csv — verbatim citations, precise citations, notes

File names and locations

  • Patent infringement:claim-chart-infringement-[专利号]-claim[#]-[target]-YYYY-MM-DD.{md,csv,xlsx}
  • Civil:element-chart-[count-slug]-[side]-YYYY-MM-DD.{md,csv,xlsx}

What this skill does not do

  • It does not draw conclusions. It does not find infringement, does not find non-infringement, does not find liability.
  • It does not decide claim construction (patents) or controlling elements (civil). It flags disputed terms/baseline elements and analyzes under stated assumptions.
  • It does not replace professional analysis. Technical experts and damages experts are independent work products; this analysis table directs to them and does not replace them.
  • It does not file or sign anything. Every output is a draft.
  • It does not speculate. If there is no evidence, the cell is 需要证据 / 缺口—never guess.