{"id":17259,"plugin_id":"plugins_6a75dc82c0fc81919985d8f2dc208355","kind":"skill","collection_source":null,"comparison_source":null,"observed_at":"2026-09-30T23:14:04.735Z","digest":"15dbd7216f63c720c48f9f0bded2fdb892f66eca59eb17a44f9145040aa52bbc","against":null,"payload":{"description":"Plan ethical, issue-led cross-examination grounded in testimony, documents, contradictions, perception, memory, bias, and admissible impeachment material. Use for civil, criminal, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative hearings.","included_files":[{"relative_path":"agents/openai.yaml","size_in_bytes":311}],"name":"cross-examination-planner","skill_md_contents":"---\nname: cross-examination-planner\ndescription: >-\n  Plan ethical, issue-led cross-examination grounded in testimony, documents,\n  contradictions, perception, memory, bias, and admissible impeachment material.\n  Use for civil, criminal, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative hearings.\n---\n\n# Cross-Examination Planner\n\nPlan propositions and evidential destinations, not a script that assumes the\nwitness will cooperate. Apply current forum rules, professional duties, and\nspecial protections for vulnerable witnesses.\n\n## Intake\n\nObtain the issues and burden, witness statements and prior accounts, pleadings,\ndepositions or transcripts, exhibits, disclosed convictions or bias material,\nexpert reports, admissibility rulings, examination time, interpreter or\naccommodation needs, prohibited topics, and the theory of the case.\n\n## Planning method\n\n1. Define the one-sentence forensic objective for each issue and whether the\n   witness can advance, limit, or undermine it.\n2. Build a proposition-to-proof table linking each intended proposition to an\n   admission, document, prior statement, another witness, expert material, or\n   permissible inference.\n3. Analyse opportunity to observe, perception, memory, recording, communication,\n   consistency, interest, bias, capacity, expertise, and limits of knowledge.\n4. Separate genuine contradiction, omission, development, ambiguity, translation,\n   refreshed memory, and difference in emphasis.\n5. Sequence short topics from safe foundation to material proposition. Use one\n   fact per question and reserve open questions for a deliberate purpose.\n6. Prepare exhibit foundations, exact prior-statement locators, required\n   confrontation steps, authenticity, completeness, context, and fallback proof.\n7. Anticipate explanation, rehabilitation, objection, adverse ruling, denial,\n   inability to recall, and the point at which to stop.\n8. Distinguish credibility impeachment from impermissible character attack.\n9. Plan sensitive questioning with necessity, proportionality, trauma awareness,\n   privacy, support, breaks, intermediaries, and judicial directions.\n10. End each topic after securing the useful answer or establishing the\n    contradiction; avoid arguing with the witness.\n\n## Output\n\nProvide objectives, issue and proposition map, topic sequence, key questions,\ndocument and prior-statement references, expected answers, follow-ups, objections,\nfallback proof, time budget, and points to preserve for submissions.\n\n## Guardrails\n\nDo not coach false evidence, intimidate, humiliate, harass, misstate the record,\nconceal context, or ask a question lacking a good-faith basis. Do not expose\nprotected identities or privileged material. Adapt to forum limits and obtain\ntrial counsel review before use.\n"},"changes":[],"summary":"First saved snapshot. No earlier version is available for comparison.","summary_kind":"deterministic","summary_metadata":{}}