SuperAPI AI Directory
Partner with us中文AI newsFavorites
Skillsdemand-received

demand-received

General & other

View repository

Updated 10-15 20:29

About this skill

/demand-received
  1. Read the provided incoming-letter file.
  2. Load ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal-zh/litigation-legal/matters/_log.yaml for case-portfolio cross-search.
  3. Load ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal-zh/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md → risk calibration, practice background, attorney-letter practice conventions.
  4. Operate according to the following workflow.
  5. Extract key fields; cross-search the case portfolio; assess substantive grounds; propose a plan with recommendations.
  6. Write to ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal-zh/litigation-legal/inbound/[slug]/triage.md. Copy or link the incoming letter to ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal-zh/litigation-legal/inbound/[slug]/incoming.[ext]。
  7. Hand off according to the user's choice:
    • Create case → pre-filled /matter-intake
    • Reply to attorney letter → pre-filled /demand-intake
    • Link to existing case → update the log's related_matters
    • Archive independently → no further action needed
Incoming-letter handling

Purpose

Incoming letters are routine work in legal litigation practice. Very few require escalation; most can be handled through a structured reply or by tentatively shelving the letter. This skill performs triage, cross-searches the case portfolio, and provides options.

Load context

  • Incoming-letter file (path provided by the user or sent in the session)
  • ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal-zh/litigation-legal/matters/_log.yaml — scan for related cases (same counterparty, counterparties linked through entity relationships, or same case type + recent date)
  • ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal-zh/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md → risk calibration (for substantive-grounds assessment), practice background (is the sender a repeat opponent?), attorney-letter practice conventions (firm tone and reply default strategy)

Workflow

Step 1: Review the incoming letter

Extract from the incoming letter:

  • Sender — entity, signatory, representing attorney (if signed by an external law firm)
  • Recipient — which of our entities/personnel
  • Method of service — courier, email, personal service (affects deadline calculation)
  • Date received vs. Date signed
  • Letter type — payment demand, breach rectification, cease-and-desist notice, evidence preservation request, settlement offer, other
  • Specific demands — what the other party demands and by when
  • Alleged facts — the other party's version of the facts
  • Legal basis — cited laws and regulations, contract clauses, theories
  • Threats — consequences of failure to comply with the demands

Step 2: Case-portfolio cross-search

Search in _log.yaml for:

  • Direct match — cases involving the same counterparty (counterparty short name matches the sender)
  • Type match — prior cases of the same type with that counterparty (closed cases still warrant attention — they form a pattern of the counterparty's behavior)
  • Matter overlap — cases that may involve the same subject matter in dispute (same contract, same product, same project)

Present the search results:

  • Ifdirect match + ongoing: It can almost be confirmed to be the same case; it is recommended to file the incoming letter into the existing case rather than opening a new case. If it is a marginal connection, update related_matters。
  • Ifdirect match + closed: Note—the other party has come back. It may be a new dispute (open a new case) or a rehashing of old matters (refile or amend the original case). User decides.
  • Iftype match: Note it as a precedent/background reference; it is most likely an independent case, but it can provide information for the response strategy.
  • Ifno match: New matter. Handle as a new case.

Step 3: Substantive Merits Assessment

This is not legal advice—it is a structured preliminary judgment:

  • Facts — Are the facts asserted by the other party consistent with what we have? Where are the deviations?
  • Legal basis — Do the cited legal provisions/contract clauses truly apply? (Flag the citations for the user to verify—do not verify the law yourself.)
  • Other party's likelihood of success — If the other party files suit tomorrow, what is their litigation logic?
  • Our defenses — What defenses might we have?
  • Claim amount vs. reasonable damages award — Is the other party's request proportionate to the amount a court might support if they prevail?
  • Leverage and pressure — Is the other party really prepared to sue? Do they have the capacity to litigate? Are they a frequent opponent recorded in ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal-zh/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md ?

Output triage rating:Substantively grounded / room for dispute / weak / unfounded. Be direct—the user is doing triage, not writing a brief.

Step 4: Response Options

Propose 3-4 options with pros and cons analysis:

Option A — Substantive reply

  • Applicable: the incoming letter is substantively grounded or at least there is room for dispute; a rational reply can protect our written record
  • Trade-off: fixes our position in writing
  • Next step:/demand-intake, prefill the reply drafting fields

Option B — Hold letter

  • Applicable: need time to investigate; do not want to admit anything or trigger the other party's deadline calculation
  • Trade-off: resolves nothing; buys 2-4 weeks
  • Next step: draft a brief acknowledgment letter

Option C — Settlement reply

  • Applicable: early settlement costs less than litigation; willing to discuss without admission
  • Trade-off: requires a settlement negotiation posture—note the risk of interruption of the limitation period (Civil Code Article 195).[法条原文]
  • Next step:/demand-intake, type is type: settlement-response

Option D — No reply + preserve evidence

  • Applicable: the incoming letter is unfounded, or the deadline set by the other party does not produce legal adverse consequences
  • Trade-off: silence may be unfavorable to us in some circumstances (e.g., account confirmation); evidence preservation still needs to be considered
  • Next step: if not yet sent, issue an evidence preservation notice via /legal-hold --issue ; record the incoming letter and shelve it

Recommend one option with specific reasons.

Step 5: Deadline Triage

  • Deadline declared by the other party — note it, but it is not binding on us
  • Our internal decision deadline — The date by which a decision must be made (typically: the counterparty's deadline minus 5 business days for drafting + approval)
  • Statutory deadlines — Statute of limitations, contractual cure periods, procedural requirements

Flag any urgent statutory deadlines and put them on the calendar.

Do not fill gaps silently. If the statutes, cases, or legal provisions cited in the incoming letter need to be verified, and a query to the configured legal research tool returns zero or very few results, 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 of [citation/legal issue] appears thin. Options: (1) broaden the search query, (2) try another research tool, (3) search the web — results will be labeled[联网检索——需复核], verify before relying on them, (4) label[需审查]and stop here. Which would you like to choose?" It is for the lawyer to decide whether to accept lower-credibility sources.

Source labeling. For every citation in the triage opinion — including the legal basis invoked by the sender, the grounds for our proposed response, and the research retrieved in the substantive-merits assessment — label the source:[yuandian检索]for citations obtained through the retrieval connector;[联网检索——需复核]for web search citations;[模型知识——需验证]for citations recalled from model knowledge;[用户提供]for statutes cited in the incoming letter. Label需验证citations carry a high fabrication risk and should be verified first. Do not remove or compress the labels.

Step 6: Write the triage opinion

Output:~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal-zh/litigation-legal/inbound/[slug]/triage.md。

[工作成果标头——根据插件配置 ## 输出——因角色不同；见 `## 使用者`]

# 来函分流——[对方名称]

> **用于分流判断，并非法律意见。** 本文件是登记审查和方案分析——不是法律实质意见。以下分流评级是支持律师决定如何路由来函的结构化判断，不是对实质问题的推荐意见，不替代特定案件的法律分析。每条援引的法规、规则或案例均标注供核实；每个实质判断属于律师，不属于本技能。

**代号：** [slug]
**收函日期：** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**收函主体：** [实体/人员]
**来函文件：** [路径]

---

## 来函概要

**发函方：** [主体、签署人、代理律师]
**来函类型：** [类型]
**具体要求：** [列表]
**对方设定的期限：** [日期]

## 主张事实

[对方版本，一段]

## 援引的法律依据

[引用——每条内联标注 `[需审查：法律适用性/时效性/管辖地]` —— 未经独立核对，不得依赖此处的任何引用]

## 威胁/声明的后续措施

[列表]

---

## 案件组合交叉检索

**直接匹配：** [如有，注明代号；否则"无"]
**类型匹配/先例：** [列表或"无"]
**事项重叠：** [列表或"无"]
**建议：** [新案 / 归入既有案件 / 通过 related_matters 关联 / 独立归档]

---

## 实质理由评估

**事实：** [与我方版本的一致性；分歧点]
**法律基础：** [适用性，附标注]
**对方诉讼前景：** [一段]
**我方抗辩：** [一段]
**索赔合理性：** [评估]
**威胁可信度：** [对方是否会起诉？是否有诉讼能力？是否为常发性对手？]

**分流评级：** [有实质根据 / 有争议空间 / 较弱 / 无依据] —— *用于路由的结构化判断，并非实质意见；`[需审查：律师确认后信赖]`*

---

## 回复方案

### A. 实质性回复
[理由、权衡、下一步]

### B. 暂搁置信函
[理由、权衡、下一步]

### C. 和解回复
[理由、权衡、下一步]

### D. 不回复 + 保留证据
[理由、权衡、下一步]

**推荐：** [A/B/C/D] —— [两句话说明理由] —— `[需审查：律师确认后执行]`

---

## 期限

- **对方设定的期限：** [日期]
- **我方内部决策期限：** [日期]
- **法定期限：** [诉讼时效、补正期、程序性要求——附日期]

---

## 即时行动

- [ ] 证据保全通知是否已发出——[是/否]——如否，运行 `/legal-hold [slug] --issue`
- [ ] 案件是否已在日志中创建——[是/否/待定]
- [ ] 承办律师是否已指定——[谁]
- [ ] 是否已通知保险——[是/否/不适用]
- [ ] 内部上报（法务负责人/CFO/业务负责人）——[谁/何时]

Step 7: Handoff

Based on the recommendation and user confirmation:

  • Create a case → hand off to /matter-intake: prefill the counterparty, type,source: demand-letter(incoming letter), with the initial theory framed defensively.
  • Reply to the attorney letter → hand off to /demand-intake: prefill the counterparty, triage context, and the desired reply outcome.
  • Link to an existing case → update that case in _log.yaml the related_matters; append the event to its history.md。
  • File separately → keep it in ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal-zh/litigation-legal/inbound/; do not update the case portfolio.

Close with the next-step decision tree

Close with the next-step decision tree in CLAUDE.md ## 输出 . Customize the options based on what this skill just produced — the five default branches (draft X, escalate, get more facts, wait and see, other options) are a starting point, not a locked-in list. The decision tree itself is the output; the lawyer chooses.

What this skill does not do

  • Verify the cited law. Label citations for the user to check (confirm whether they are valid law) or verify with outside counsel. Inventing legal analysis on your own about the incoming letter is practice-risk exposure.
  • Send a reply. The reply letter is drafted in demand-draft ; this skill stops at the triage decision.
  • Make a final judgment on the substantive issues. The triage rating is a routing judgment; a formal substantive legal opinion should be provided by outside counsel or through deeper analysis.
  • Decide for the user whether to create a case. Present the recommendation; the user decides.