Legal Case Analysis

The Problem

Legal case analysis often breaks down because case materials are scattered, facts and evidence are mixed together, legal research is under-specified, and conclusions are hard to verify. This skill does not simply draft an opinion. It first turns case summaries, contracts, letters, payment records, chat logs, court documents, and evidence lists into Markdown, then builds a verifiable analysis draft around the user's goal. It is useful before evaluating litigation, answering consultations, preparing internal reports, explaining matters to clients, or splitting legal research tasks.

How It Works

The skill treats legal analysis as the first layer and report generation as a secondary output. The workflow identifies the goal and case stage, extracts facts and evidence, distinguishes evidence from statements, and checks disputed materials for authenticity, relevance, legality, and purpose. For litigation, it favors an element-based structure that maps claim bases, elements, facts, evidence, burden of proof, and defenses item by item. Missing information is marked as “not mentioned” or “to be completed,” rather than invented.

• Research first: It forms research questions before citing statutes, cases, or research conclusions; basic search can connect to yuandian-law-search.
• Scenario branches: Civil and commercial matters can use references/element-litigation-nine-step.md; criminal matters can use references/criminal-case-analysis.md and its unlawful-act and culpability framework.
• Output tiers: It can deliver an analysis draft, a short consultation answer, an internal report, a client summary, or a legal research query list using templates/legal-research-query-list.md.
• Document handling: PDFs, images, and scans should be OCR-converted to Markdown before extraction and argumentation.

Boundaries and Notes

The skill is not bound to a specific cause of action. Domain rules depend on case materials, research results, and the user's objective. If materials are incomplete, conclusions should retain “to be completed.” Issues involving limitation periods, filing deadlines, old-versus-new law, or changing judicial interpretations require separate validation. It is better used as an analysis layer inside a legal workflow rather than as a replacement for formal legal advice or complete litigation strategy.