China Judgment Similar Case Retrieval

Problem Statement

In legal practice and compliance review, finding relevant precedents often requires processing massive amounts of unstructured materials. When dealing with complex case facts, varying points of dispute, or specific court jurisdictions, traditional keyword-stuffing searches struggle to accurately target the right judgments. China Judgment Similar Case Retrieval addresses this by transforming scattered court documents into structured, analyzable case clues.

Core Capabilities & Workflow

Powered by the deli-cli backend, this skill translates retrieval requests into a single, high-quality CLI invocation, preventing focus drift caused by mechanical keyword splitting. The workflow includes:
- Intent Identification & Routing: Automatically determines whether the input contains a full factual relationship (long text) or only short tags like case numbers, causes of action, and courts.
- Long-Text & Keyword Retrieval: If case facts, claims, or disputes are provided, it prioritizes similar case matching via --long-text parameters. Keyword combination retrieval is used only for tag-based searches or as a fallback.
- Result Organization & Rule Extraction: Based on CLI-returned fields like case numbers, procedures, and dates, it extracts core facts and dispute points, generating a smart summary under 100 words.
- Case Comparison: Synthesizes common ruling rules from multiple cases, comparing core facts and judgment outcomes to assist in forming search conclusions.

Boundaries & Caveats

• Data Availability: Results are limited to publicly available data currently returned by the CLI. Due to court publication scopes and update delays, non-public or internal documents may be missing.
• Professional Analysis Limits: This skill provides retrieval and presentation services only. It does not replace legal opinions, contract reviews, or case-specific litigation strategy analysis.
• Citation Standards: When outputting or citing results, complete case numbers, trial courts, and judgment dates must be included. Users must verify against the latest official documents.