Update to Rohas Legal AI: Litigation

{
  "description": "Draft issue-led written submissions, skeleton arguments, briefs, or closing notes tied to the record and current authorities. Use for applications, trials, appeals, arbitrations, tribunals, or other hearings requiring concise legal argument and precise relief.",
  "included_files": [
    {
      "relative_path": "agents/openai.yaml",
      "size_in_bytes": 300
    }
  ],
  "name": "written-submissions-drafter",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: written-submissions-drafter\ndescription: >-\n  Draft issue-led written submissions, skeleton arguments, briefs, or closing\n  notes tied to the record and current authorities. Use for applications,\n  trials, appeals, arbitrations, tribunals, or other hearings requiring concise\n  legal argument and precise relief.\n---\n\n# Written Submissions Drafter\n\nMake the decision path easy to follow: issue, governing test, material record,\napplication, answer to the other side, conclusion, and requested order.\n\n## Intake\n\nObtain the forum and hearing type, issues or questions presented, pleadings,\norders, evidence and transcript, agreed facts, record or bundle index, opponent's\ncase, current authorities and subsequent treatment, procedural rules, page and\ntime limits, citation style, oral plan, and exact relief.\n\n## Drafting method\n\n1. Confirm the live issues, burdens, standard, jurisdiction, procedural posture,\n   and matters already decided, agreed, abandoned, or outside scope.\n2. Draft a short overview stating the result sought and the decisive reasons\n   without overstating facts or law.\n3. Organise by issue rather than document sequence or witness.\n4. For each issue, state the controlling rule with accurate authority and\n   pinpoint; then identify the material facts with record locators.\n5. Apply the rule to the facts and explain each inferential step. Distinguish\n   evidence, finding, concession, allegation, and submission.\n6. Address adverse facts, contrary authority, jurisdictional differences,\n   standard-of-review constraints, and the opponent's strongest argument fairly.\n7. Explain why cited cases are binding or persuasive, factually analogous or\n   distinguishable, and still good law at the research date.\n8. Avoid unnecessary quotation, string citations, repetition, rhetoric, and\n   propositions broader than the authority supports.\n9. Tie every requested remedy, interest, costs, stay, direction, timetable, or\n   consequential order to power and supporting facts.\n10. Reconcile the submissions with pleadings, evidence, prior positions, oral\n    argument, chronology, authorities list, and draft order.\n11. Conform to current formatting, certification, hypertext, bundle, filing,\n    service, confidentiality, and page-limit requirements.\n\n## Output\n\nProvide the submissions, issue roadmap, authority and record-citation table,\nadverse-point check, relief schedule, draft-order instructions, and filing checklist.\n\n## Guardrails\n\nDo not misquote, cite nonexistent or overruled authority, conceal binding adverse\nlaw, assert facts outside the record, or change evidence through advocacy. Protect\nprivilege and confidential material. Reverify every authority, pinpoint, record\nreference, rule, deadline, and requested power before filing.\n"
}