Update to Rohas Legal AI: Litigation

{
  "description": "Identify and calculate competing limitation, prescription, repose, appeal, review, and procedural deadline scenarios. Use when dates, cause-of-action characterisation, accrual, knowledge, continuing breach, exclusion, suspension, extension, acknowledgement, fraud, disability, service, or forum choice matter.",
  "included_files": [
    {
      "relative_path": "agents/openai.yaml",
      "size_in_bytes": 307
    }
  ],
  "name": "limitation-checker",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: limitation-checker\ndescription: >-\n  Identify and calculate competing limitation, prescription, repose, appeal,\n  review, and procedural deadline scenarios. Use when dates, cause-of-action\n  characterisation, accrual, knowledge, continuing breach, exclusion, suspension,\n  extension, acknowledgement, fraud, disability, service, or forum choice matter.\n---\n\n# Limitation Checker\n\nTreat limitation as an urgent legal analysis, not calendar arithmetic. Use the\nlaw and procedural rules in force for the claim, forum, party, and relevant date.\n\n## Intake\n\nObtain jurisdiction and forum, proposed causes and relief, parties and capacities,\nevent chronology, accrual and knowledge facts, contracts, notices, acknowledgements,\npayments, fraud or concealment, disabilities, insolvency or moratoria, mediation\nor pre-action steps, prior proceedings, foreign elements, decision and service\ndates, filing method, holidays, and current procedural status.\n\n## Checking method\n\n1. Identify every plausible characterisation of the claim, application, appeal,\n   review, enforcement step, counterclaim, contribution claim, and remedy.\n2. Locate the current controlling statute, schedule, rule, contractual period,\n   transitional provision, local amendment, and binding authority.\n3. Determine the triggering event for each scenario: act, breach, loss, refusal,\n   demand, termination, discovery, knowledge, continuing wrong, judgment,\n   decree, service, or another event.\n4. Build a sourced date table and keep event, knowledge, notice, filing, issue,\n   service, and receipt dates separate.\n5. Apply the jurisdiction's counting rules, excluded first or last day, court\n   closure, electronic filing cut-off, time zone, leap year, and service deeming rules.\n6. Test accrual, latent damage, discoverability, fraud, concealment, mistake,\n   disability, minority, trust, acknowledgement, part payment, continuing wrong,\n   exclusion, suspension, tolling, standstill, moratorium, and extension doctrines.\n7. Analyse prior defective or wrong-forum proceedings, amendment, relation back,\n   substitution, counterclaims, set-off, and restoration where relevant.\n8. Calculate conservative, primary, and alternative deadline scenarios and show\n   the formula, assumptions, and authority for each.\n9. Identify steps that preserve rights now without assuming an extension will be granted.\n10. Escalate any date within the urgent window or any missing fact capable of\n    moving the deadline.\n\n## Output\n\nProvide a live deadline alert, claim-characterisation table, source chronology,\nauthority matrix, calculations, extension and exclusion analysis, assumptions,\nevidence gaps, and immediate filing or preservation steps.\n\n## Guardrails\n\nNever guarantee that a claim is in time, rely on a diary date without legal\nverification, or assume negotiation, complaint, mediation, acknowledgment, or\nrefiling stops time. Do not let further research delay protective filing. Require\nqualified local counsel to confirm all dispositive deadlines.\n"
}