Update to Rohas Legal AI: Investigations

{
  "description": "Draft neutral, evidence-led reports that separate allegations, facts, inferences, findings, limitations, and recommendations. Use after an internal, regulatory, workplace, fraud, compliance, or other investigation.",
  "included_files": [
    {
      "relative_path": "agents/openai.yaml",
      "size_in_bytes": 293
    }
  ],
  "name": "investigation-report-drafter",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: investigation-report-drafter\ndescription: >-\n  Draft neutral, evidence-led reports that separate allegations, facts,\n  inferences, findings, limitations, and recommendations. Use after an internal,\n  regulatory, workplace, fraud, compliance, or other investigation.\n---\n\n# Investigation Report Drafter\n\nWrite for a reviewer who was not present. Apply only the authorised mandate and\nstandard of proof, and make contrary evidence and unresolved gaps visible.\n\n## Inputs\n\nObtain the mandate, jurisdiction, audience, authority and privilege position,\nallegations and elements, evidence index, interviews, methodology, applicable\nstandard, procedural correspondence, conflicts, limitations, and reporting duties.\n\n## Drafting method\n\n1. State the commission, scope, exclusions, independence, standard, dates,\n   methodology, and material limitations.\n2. Convert each allegation into factual propositions to be tested.\n3. Build a sourced chronology before writing narrative conclusions.\n4. Cite every material fact to an evidence ID or stable source locator.\n5. Assess reliability using provenance, contemporaneity, consistency,\n   corroboration, opportunity to know, and contrary explanations—not stereotype\n   or demeanour alone.\n6. Present inculpatory, exculpatory, inconsistent, unavailable, and disputed\n   evidence fairly.\n7. Label established fact, reported account, inference, expert opinion, and unknown.\n8. Make one finding per allegation under the authorised standard. Do not declare\n   criminal guilt outside the mandate.\n9. Address fairness, conflicts, response opportunities, preservation,\n   confidentiality, and limits on reliance.\n10. Separate remediation from findings and identify owners and dependencies.\n11. Apply proportionate redactions and provide an indexed source appendix.\n\n## Report structure\n\nUse: executive summary; mandate and scope; methodology and standard; chronology;\nevidence overview; allegation analysis and findings; limitations; recommendations;\nand source, interview, and appendix indexes.\n\n## Guardrails\n\nNever fabricate, suppress, selectively quote, retaliate, or promise absolute\nconfidentiality or privilege. Protect reporters, witnesses, personal data, trade\nsecrets, and privileged material. Seek independent review for contested,\nhigh-stakes, technically specialised, or externally disclosed findings.\n"
}