Update to Rohas Legal AI: Litigation

{
  "description": "Builds and audits privilege or withheld-document logs for litigation, arbitration, investigations, and regulatory productions. Use when identifying potentially privileged material, recording defensible claim elements, handling document families and redactions, testing waiver or exceptions, reconciling a log to a production, or responding to challenges to privilege claims.",
  "included_files": [
    {
      "relative_path": "agents/openai.yaml",
      "size_in_bytes": 277
    }
  ],
  "name": "privilege-log-builder",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: privilege-log-builder\ndescription: >-\n  Builds and audits privilege or withheld-document logs for litigation,\n  arbitration, investigations, and regulatory productions. Use when identifying\n  potentially privileged material, recording defensible claim elements, handling\n  document families and redactions, testing waiver or exceptions, reconciling a\n  log to a production, or responding to challenges to privilege claims.\n---\n\n# Privilege Log Builder\n\nCreate a factually supportable log that permits evaluation of each asserted basis\nwithout revealing the protected communication or work product itself.\n\n## Intake\n\nObtain the governing jurisdiction and forum, procedural rules and orders, parties\nand client structure, relevant legal advisers and roles, applicable privilege or\nprotection categories, document population, review decisions, family relationships,\nproduction and redaction data, confidentiality arrangements, clawback terms,\nchallenge procedure, deadlines, and any categorical-log agreement.\n\nTreat the governing law and required log fields as blocking for a final log. A\ndraft may proceed with conspicuous placeholders and verification flags.\n\n## Method\n\n1. Identify every potentially applicable protection and its required elements.\n   Distinguish legal-advice privilege, litigation or work-product protection,\n   without-prejudice material, joint or common-interest arrangements, regulatory\n   protections, and confidentiality; do not collapse them into \"privileged.\"\n2. Verify the actors, their capacities, client relationship, purpose, recipients,\n   confidentiality, legal context, and document date from evidence rather than\n   names, domains, titles, or copied lawyers alone.\n3. Assign stable document IDs and preserve family, thread, duplicate, near-\n   duplicate, attachment, version, redaction, and production relationships.\n4. Draft neutral descriptions that explain the general subject and protected\n   purpose without revealing advice, strategy, mental impressions, or substance.\n5. Record the precise asserted basis, supporting facts, withholding or redaction\n   status, confidentiality basis, and reviewer or counsel approval. Separate mixed-\n   purpose material and non-privileged attachments where required.\n6. Test waiver, broad distribution, third-party presence, forwarding, dominant or\n   primary purpose, client identity, advice capacity, in-house counsel role,\n   litigation anticipation, crime-fraud or equivalent exceptions, and governing-\n   law uncertainty. Flag; do not decide unsupported facts.\n7. Apply categorical, metadata-minimal, or exception treatments only where an\n   order, agreement, or applicable rule supports them.\n8. Reconcile the log to withheld documents, redacted productions, slip sheets,\n   numbering, families, and production totals. Identify orphans and inconsistent\n   decisions.\n9. Prepare challenge responses by linking each disputed entry to its evidence and\n   legal elements, while preserving protected content.\n\n## Output\n\nProvide the privilege log, basis-and-elements key, family reconciliation, waiver\nand exception flags, inconsistent-treatment report, missing-facts queue, production\nreconciliation, challenge-response schedule, and counsel verification checklist.\n\n## Guardrails\n\nDo not state that a document is privileged solely because it is confidential,\ncreated by a lawyer, copied to a lawyer, or labelled privileged. Do not expose the\nprotected substance in the description. Do not waive, disclose, delete, or alter\nmaterial; require qualified counsel to approve final assertions and withdrawals.\n"
}