Update to Rohas Legal AI: Litigation

{
  "description": "Reviews proposed or completed legal redactions for an identified disclosure, filing, publication, investigation, or information-access process. Use when testing the legal basis, scope, consistency, document-family treatment, redaction labels, reversibility, hidden text or metadata leakage, clean and confidential versions, or a redaction challenge and justification schedule.",
  "included_files": [
    {
      "relative_path": "agents/openai.yaml",
      "size_in_bytes": 289
    }
  ],
  "name": "redaction-reviewer",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: redaction-reviewer\ndescription: >-\n  Reviews proposed or completed legal redactions for an identified disclosure,\n  filing, publication, investigation, or information-access process. Use when\n  testing the legal basis, scope, consistency, document-family treatment,\n  redaction labels, reversibility, hidden text or metadata leakage, clean and\n  confidential versions, or a redaction challenge and justification schedule.\n---\n\n# Redaction Reviewer\n\nAssess each redaction against the actual disclosure purpose and governing legal\nbasis, then verify that the applied redaction cannot be reversed or bypassed.\n\n## Intake\n\nObtain the jurisdiction, forum and audience; governing rules, order, protocol or\npublication standard; complete unredacted source; proposed redacted version;\nproduction or filing format; redaction log; privilege and confidentiality decisions;\nprotective measures; document families and duplicates; personal-data and secrecy\nconstraints; and the authorised approver.\n\nKeep unredacted material in the authorised environment. If only the redacted copy\nis available, limit the review to visible and technical defects and state that the\nsubstantive basis cannot be verified.\n\n## Method\n\n1. Identify the precise purpose and audience: party disclosure, public filing,\n   court inspection, freedom-of-information release, regulator production,\n   investigation report, or publication. Do not transfer a redaction standard\n   from one setting to another.\n2. Build a basis key from current governing authority and orders. Distinguish\n   privilege, personal data, secrecy, confidentiality, irrelevance, trade secrets,\n   protected identities, security, and court-ordered treatment.\n3. Compare source and redacted versions by stable document and page or field\n   locators. Record the content category, asserted basis, decision-maker, extent,\n   label, and whether a less extensive protective measure is sufficient.\n4. Test necessity and proportionality. Avoid hiding context needed to understand\n   disclosed material and avoid redacting a fact merely because it is adverse,\n   embarrassing, commercially inconvenient, or already confidential.\n5. Reconcile treatment across duplicates, near-duplicates, email threads,\n   attachments, versions, translations, exhibits, structured data, and prior\n   disclosures. Do not assume an earlier mistake authorises repetition.\n6. Check partial redactions, legends, confidentiality markings, page numbering,\n   cross-references, indexes, bookmarks, filenames, and the separation of public,\n   confidential, sealed, and counsel-only versions.\n7. Test technical permanence using authorised inspection: selectable text, OCR,\n   layers, annotations, comments, revision history, hidden cells or slides,\n   metadata, thumbnails, attachments, embedded objects, alternate renditions,\n   search indexes, and copy-paste or extraction.\n8. Reconcile the final redaction log and privilege log to the released set. Record\n   over-redaction, under-redaction, unexplained inconsistency, leakage, and items\n   requiring counsel or court determination.\n9. Preserve the clean source, approved redacted version, tool and method, operator,\n   date, verification results, approver, release recipient, and challenge history.\n\n## Output\n\nProvide a redaction schedule, basis key, source-to-release reconciliation,\nconsistency report, technical leakage findings, version and audience matrix,\nchallenge-response table, blocking defects, and final approval checklist.\n\n## Guardrails\n\nDo not alter or overwrite the only source copy, expose protected content in the\nreport, infer a legal basis from black boxes alone, or promise that visual covering\nis secure deletion. Do not remove adverse evidence, defeat lawful access, or apply\nredactions without authorised legal and technical review.\n"
}