- Load
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal-zh/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md→ review protocol. - Follow the workflow and reference materials below.
- For each item: clearly admissible / clearly inadmissible / requires lawyer review. Flag the reason.
- Output: reviewed evidence list with flags. The lawyer reviews all flags before cross-examination.
Three-property evidence review
Purpose
There are three kinds of evidence review items: those clearly admissible, those clearly inadmissible, and those requiring judgment. This skill screens the first two so that the lawyer's time is devoted entirely to the third.
This is a first-round review. The lawyer reviews every flag. No exceptions.
Evidence review framework under Chinese law
In Chinese civil litigation, the core of evidence review is thethree-property review：
- Authenticity— whether the evidence is an original/exhibit, or a copy/reproduction verified to be consistent
- Legality— whether the source and form of the evidence comply with legal provisions
- Relevance— whether the evidence is related to the facts to be proved
Legal basis:
- Article 66 of the Civil Procedure Law (types of evidence)
[法条原文] - Articles 104-106 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law (evidence review and exclusion of illegal evidence)
[法条原文] - Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Procedure
[法条原文]
Exclusion of illegal evidence (Article 106 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law): Evidence formed or obtained by methods that seriously infringe upon others' lawful rights and interests, violate prohibitive provisions of law, or seriously violate public order and good morals shall not be used as a basis for finding the facts of a case.[法条原文]
Load context
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal-zh/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md → review protocol.
Judgment
Three-state rule. This skill never silently decides that a subjective judgment standard is unmet. On any uncertain judgment — doubtful legality, borderline relevance — the skill retains a "pending review" flag and adds a ⚠️ mark for the lawyer. Incorrectly marking something admissible is a one-way door; over-flagging is corrected by the lawyer during review (two-way door). Prefer recoverable errors.
Clearly admissible (✅) — retain, do not flag
- Original or a copy verified to be consistent with the original
- Evidence with a lawful source and compliant form
- Directly related to the facts to be proved
- Submitted within the evidence submission period
Uncertain — retain but flag (✅ + ⚠️)
The following is the default. The skill does not exclude evidence based on its own subjective judgment. Examples:
- A copy cannot be verified against the original— authenticity is doubtful. Retain; flag for the lawyer's judgment.
- Audio or video recordings made without the other party's consent— may be admissible if it does not seriously infringe upon others' lawful rights and interests or violate prohibitive provisions of law. Retain; flag for the lawyer's judgment.
- Relevance is borderline— may be relevant or irrelevant. Retain; flag.
- Evidence submitted after the deadline—Does this constitute "overdue for objective reasons" or "the other party has no objection"? Article 65 of the Civil Procedure Law
[法条原文]. Retain; flag for lawyer's judgment. - Hearsay in witness testimony—This is a determination of probative weight, not admissibility. Retain; flag.
Each flag records the specific open issues and both sides of the evidence, enabling the lawyer to decide without reading from the beginning.
Clearly inadmissible (❌)—recommend exclusion, but note the grounds for the assessment
- Obtained by means that seriously infringe upon the lawful rights and interests of others
- Obtained by means that violate prohibitive provisions of law
- Completely unrelated to the facts to be proved
- Forged evidence confirmed by authentication
If any one item isborderline—whether the recorded content constitutes a serious infringement—then it is uncertain, not ❌.
Workflow
Step 1: Format check
Does the evidence list contain the necessary fields?
| Field | Present? |
|---|---|
| Number | |
| Evidence name | |
| Source of evidence | |
| Content to be proved | |
| Form of evidence (documentary evidence/physical evidence/electronic data/witness testimony, etc.) | |
| Whether it is the original document/original object |
Missing fields → flag as needing completion before substantive review.
Step 2: Item-by-item review
For each entry:
条目[N]：[✅ 可采 | ✅ + ⚠️ 保留 & 标记 | ❌ 建议排除]
[如✅：一行理由]
[如✅ + ⚠️：保留；律师需要回答的具体问题；两面证据]
[如❌：一行理由——但条目保留在清单上直到律师决定移除]
Step 3: Pattern flagging
Across the entire list:
- Does the same issue recur?
- A pattern of excessive evidence submission?
- Vague description of the content to be proved?
Output
[工作成果标题]
## 证据三性审查：[案件] — [日期]
**适用规则：** 《民事诉讼法》第66条、第65条 `[法条原文]` + 司法解释第104-106条 `[法条原文]`
**已审查条目：** [N]
**结果：** [N] ✅ 可采 / [N] ✅+⚠️ 保留并标记 / [N] ❌ 建议排除
### ✅ + ⚠️ 已标记 —— 律师决定
| 条目 | 证据编号 | 问题 | 支持可采 | 反对可采 | 待判断 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
### ❌ 建议排除（律师确认后移除）
| 条目 | 证据编号 | 理由 |
|---|---|---|
### ✅ 可采（无需行动）
[计数。可按需提供列表。]
### 模式观察
[重复问题、过度提交、描述问题]
---
**律师必须在任何行动前审查所有 ⚠️ 和 ❌。**
What this skill explicitly does not do
- Make borderline judgments. ⚠️ means "human decision".
- Remove evidence from the evidence list on its own. ❌ is recorded for the lawyersuggestion, not an operation performed on the list.
- Guarantee the accuracy of ✅ judgments. The lawyer is responsible for the evidence list. This is a first-round review.