Update to Rohas Legal AI: Research

{
  "description": "Maps the authorities on a specific legal point and how they relate to each other — which follows which, which distinguishes or overrules another, where a genuine split exists — sourcing every case's existence, citation, and holding only from material retrieved this session or supplied by the user. Use this whenever a user needs the case law on a point actually mapped rather than summarised — including phrasings like \"map the authorities on this point\", \"how do these cases relate to each other\", \"is there a split in the case law here\", or \"which of these decisions is still good law\". Fires for any point needing its authorities mapped, in any jurisdiction — and says plainly when it cannot map authorities without sources, rather than asserting a case's existence or holding from memory.",
  "included_files": [
    {
      "relative_path": "agents/openai.yaml",
      "size_in_bytes": 234
    }
  ],
  "name": "precedent-mapper",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: precedent-mapper\ndescription: Maps the authorities on a specific legal point and how they relate to each other — which follows which, which distinguishes or overrules another, where a genuine split exists — sourcing every case's existence, citation, and holding only from material retrieved this session or supplied by the user. Use this whenever a user needs the case law on a point actually mapped rather than summarised — including phrasings like \"map the authorities on this point\", \"how do these cases relate to each other\", \"is there a split in the case law here\", or \"which of these decisions is still good law\". Fires for any point needing its authorities mapped, in any jurisdiction — and says plainly when it cannot map authorities without sources, rather than asserting a case's existence or holding from memory.\n---\n\n# Precedent Mapper\n\n## What this does\n\nMaps the authorities bearing on one specific legal point: what each case actually holds on that point, and — the part a simple list does not give you — how the authorities relate to each other, which follows or applies another, which distinguishes it and on what basis, which overrules or has been overruled, and where a genuine unaddressed conflict exists. Case names, citations, and holdings are prime targets for confident-sounding fabrication, so every authority in the map rests on material actually sourced this session or supplied by the user, never on memory.\n\n## Before you start\n\n**The precise point the map is being built around.** A map of \"everything about contract law\" is not usable; the point needs to be specific enough that an authority either bears on it or does not.\n\n**Whether research tools are available this session, or whether the user is supplying the authorities.** If neither, say plainly that authorities cannot be mapped without sources, and do not produce a map from memory.\n\nNot blocking, ask once and proceed on a reasonable default without it: **how many authorities, or what time period, the map should cover.** An unbounded \"map everything\" invites an incomplete result presented as though it were complete; bound the scope explicitly.\n\n## Method\n\n**1. Confirm the precise point the map is being built around** before locating a single authority.\n\n**2. Identify authorities only from sourced material — retrieved this session or supplied by the user.** Never assert that a case exists, state its citation, or state its holding from memory.\n\n**3. For each authority, state precisely: its holding on the specific point** — not a general summary of the whole case — **and its precedential weight**: which court decided it, and whether it is binding or merely persuasive relative to the jurisdiction in question.\n\n**4. Map the relationships between authorities explicitly.** Which case follows or applies another; which distinguishes another, and on what stated basis; which overrules or has been overruled; which conflicts with another without either addressing the conflict. This relationship layer is the entire value of a map over a list, and it needs to be stated precisely, never implied or left for the reader to infer.\n\n**5. Identify the current state of the law on the point as it follows from the mapped authorities** — a single clear rule, a split, or an evolving trend — stated as a conclusion that follows from the map, not as an independent assertion sitting alongside it.\n\n**6. Flag where an authority's current validity is uncertain** — potentially overruled by implication, subject to a pending appeal, criticised but not formally overruled — wherever the sourced material actually indicates this.\n\n**7. Note gaps plainly** — a sub-question the mapped authorities do not actually resolve, or a point where research access was limited — rather than letting the map imply a completeness it does not have.\n\n## Output\n\n**1. Header.** The point, jurisdiction, date, sourcing mode.\n\n**2. Authorities.** Each with its citation (sourced), court or level, and its holding on the specific point.\n\n**3. Relationship map.** A table: Authority | Relationship | To which authority | Basis — follows, distinguishes, overrules, or conflicts, stated explicitly.\n\n**4. Current state of the law.** Derived from the map, not asserted independently of it.\n\n**5. Uncertain validity.** Any authority flagged for its current status.\n\n**6. Gaps.** What the map does not resolve, or where research access was limited.\n\n**7. Points requiring verification.** Currency of any authority, and anything not fully sourced this session.\n\n## Do not\n\nDo not assert a case's existence, citation, or holding from memory.\n\nDo not state a general case summary in place of the holding on the specific point being mapped.\n\nDo not imply a relationship between authorities — follows, distinguishes, overrules — without that relationship being sourced.\n\nDo not present the map as exhaustive if research access was limited. Flag the gap.\n\nDo not resolve a genuine split in authority into a false single rule.\n"
}