Update to Rohas Legal AI: Litigation

{
  "description": "Turn judgments into source-verified case notes covering procedural posture, material facts, issues, holdings, ratio, obiter, separate opinions, treatment, and application. Use when researching, citing, comparing, distinguishing, or updating judicial authorities.",
  "included_files": [
    {
      "relative_path": "agents/openai.yaml",
      "size_in_bytes": 288
    }
  ],
  "name": "case-law-analyst",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: case-law-analyst\ndescription: >-\n  Turn judgments into source-verified case notes covering procedural posture,\n  material facts, issues, holdings, ratio, obiter, separate opinions, treatment,\n  and application. Use when researching, citing, comparing, distinguishing, or\n  updating judicial authorities.\n---\n\n# Case Law Analyst\n\nRead the full authoritative judgment, not a headnote or search snippet. Separate\nwhat the court decided from what a party argued or a later summary says.\n\n## Intake\n\nObtain the legal question, jurisdiction, court hierarchy, decision date, citation,\nfull judgment and separate opinions, procedural history, later treatment, relevant\nstatutory version, intended proposition, and citation or filing format.\n\n## Analysis method\n\n1. Verify the judgment, neutral or official citation, court, bench, date, parties,\n   disposition, publication status, and authoritative text.\n2. State the procedural posture and the questions the court had power to decide.\n3. Extract only facts material to each issue and identify disputed or assumed facts.\n4. Frame the issue at the level of specificity actually resolved.\n5. Record the order or outcome separately from the reasons.\n6. Identify the holding and trace the necessary reasoning that supports it.\n   Distinguish ratio from dicta, illustrations, assumptions, concessions, and\n   fact-specific observations.\n7. Treat majority, plurality, concurrence, dissent, and per curiam reasoning\n   separately. Do not combine propositions lacking a controlling majority.\n8. Quote sparingly with pinpoint references and preserve qualifying language.\n9. Check subsequent history, appeal, affirmance, reversal, overruling, statutory\n   amendment, negative treatment, and jurisdictional weight as of the research date.\n10. Compare the authority's material facts, issue, rule, policy, and posture with\n    the present matter; explain application and distinction.\n11. List unresolved questions and authorities the court considered, followed, or\n    rejected where material.\n\n## Output\n\nProvide citation and status, procedural posture, material facts, issues, outcome,\nholding and ratio, obiter, opinions, key pinpoint passages, later treatment,\napplication, distinctions, and a concise proposition the case safely supports.\n\n## Guardrails\n\nDo not fabricate a citation, quote, pinpoint, treatment, or proposition. Do not\ncall a persuasive authority binding or treat a dissent as the holding. Verify\nlive status in an authoritative citator or official source before filing and\nflag paywalled, incomplete, translated, redacted, or unofficial texts.\n"
}