Communitygithub.com

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Drafts a Pre-Hearing Statement of Proof for personal injury litigation. Use when preparing prehearing statements, statements of proof, or evidentiary summaries for hearings before courts or administrative agencies.

legal-skills-open とは?

legal-skills-open is a Claude Code agent skill that drafts a Pre-Hearing Statement of Proof for personal injury litigation. Use when preparing prehearing statements, statements of proof, or evidentiary summaries for hearings before courts or administrative agencies.

対応~Claude Code~Codex CLI~Cursor
npx skills add https://github.com/ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open/tree/HEAD/general/personal-injury/skills/pre-hearing-statement

お気に入りのAIに質問する

このエージェントスキルを事前に読み込んだ状態で新しいチャットを開きます。

ドキュメント

Pre-Hearing Statement of Proof

Produces a numbered-paragraph prehearing submission presenting evidentiary foundation, witness summaries, and legal arguments for a personal injury matter.

Required Inputs

  1. Case identifiers — name, number, forum/agency, hearing date, submitting party
  2. Chronological facts — key dates, events, parties, relationships
  3. Witness list — names, contact info, relationship, expected testimony
  4. Documentary evidence — medical records, photos, correspondence, reports
  5. Medical records — providers, diagnoses, treatment history, causation opinions
  6. Damages — itemized breakdown by category and time period

Quick Start

  1. Gather all required inputs above.
  2. Draft each section below using numbered paragraphs throughout.
  3. Tie every factual assertion to identified evidence — no unsupported claims.
  4. Mark uncertain citations with [VERIFY].
  5. Review against the Pitfalls checklist before finalizing.

Document Sections

I. Introduction

ElementContent
CaptionCase name, number, forum/agency
Hearing dateDate and location
Submitting partyName, role (plaintiff/claimant)
Nature of claimConcise description of dispute
Legal basisStatutes, regulations, or common law grounds
Relief soughtSpecific remedy or damages requested

II. Statement of Facts

  • Strict chronological order
  • Identify all parties and relationships
  • Every assertion tied to evidence to be presented
  • Objective tone building factual foundation for legal position

III. Issues for Determination

  • Frame each disputed question as a precise issue statement
  • Order logically for the hearing officer
  • Distinguish legal questions from factual disputes

IV. Witness Summary

Per witness:

FieldContent
NameFull name
ContactAddress, phone
RelationshipConnection to case
Expected testimonyKey facts/opinions to establish
PurposeHow testimony supports position

For expert witnesses, add: qualifications, expertise area, substance of opinions.

V. Exhibit List

ExhibitDescriptionRelevance
A, B, C…Document typeWhat it proves

Organize chronologically or by category. Assign identification letters/numbers.

VI. Medical Proof

  • All treating/evaluating providers
  • Diagnoses and treatment history
  • Opinions on causation and impairment/disability
  • Connect to applicable legal standards
  • Persuasive but accurate tone favoring submitting party

VII. Legal Argument

  • Cite applicable statutes, regulations, case law
  • Show how evidence satisfies each legal element
  • Anticipate and rebut likely opposing arguments

VIII. Damages / Relief Sought

  • Itemize monetary damages by category (medical, lost wages, pain/suffering, etc.)
  • Show calculation methodology and time periods
  • For non-monetary relief, specify action requested and legal basis

IX. Stipulations

  • Facts agreed to by both parties
  • Exhibits admitted without objection
  • Any narrowing of issues

X. Procedural History

  • Prior hearings or proceedings
  • Relevant discovery conducted
  • Never reference settlement discussions (inadmissible)

Pitfalls

  • Unsupported facts — every assertion needs identified evidence; no speculation
  • Settlement references — exclude all settlement communications per FRE 408 / state equivalents
  • Unverified citations — tag with [VERIFY]; do not present uncertain authority as definitive
  • Local rule non-compliance — incorporate jurisdiction-specific procedural requirements when known
  • Missing numbered paragraphs — all sections must use numbered paragraphs for easy reference

Individual skills in this repo

This repo contains 20 individual skills — each has its own dedicated page.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Track the IP portfolio — registrations, renewals, maintenance fees, and use declarations. Use when checking what's renewing, adding or updating an asset, recording a maintenance filing, or auditing the register for gaps, lapses, and use-in-commerce questions. Receives handoffs from prosecution and clearance work.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

When the user's message starts with "Canada" (case-insensitive), generate a full Ontario PI Case Assessment Memo from the case_stressor corpus and return it verbatim. This is the primary handler for Canadian fact patterns — DO NOT ask clarifying questions first; run the memo and let the lawyer react.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

交通事故责任评估与判定专业技能。当用户需要交通事故责任分析、事故现场照片评估、交通法规咨询、事故责任划分、法律依据查询时触发此技能。适用于车辆碰撞事故、行人事故、非机动车事故等各类道路交通事故的责任认定场景。无论用户使用"交通事故"、"车祸"、"责任判定"、"交通法规"、"事故定责"等何种表述,只要涉及交通事故评估或责任认定,均应调用此技能。

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Strategische Markenportfolio-Planung für Luxus-Modehaeuser: Mandant will Marken in DE/EU/international schützen oder Portfolio optimieren. Normen: §§ 32 ff. MarkenG, Art. 32 ff. UMV (EU) 2017/1001, Madrid-Protokoll (WIPO). Prüfraster: Nizza-Klassen (3/14/18/25/35), Multi-Class-Strategie, Prioritaets-Kaskade, Kostenoptimierung, Anmeldezeitpunkt. Output Marken-Portfolio-Plan, Anmelde-Empfehlung je Territorium, Kostenprojektion. Abgrenzung: Einzelne Anmeldung DPMA siehe wortmarke-anmeldung-dpma; Madrid-Protokoll Details siehe madrid-protokoll-und-internationale-registrierung.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Audit an intellectual-property portfolio for ownership, protection, scope, deadlines, territorial coverage, use, value, encumbrances, and enforcement risk. Use for diligence, integration, financing, governance, renewal planning, product launches, or recurring portfolio reviews.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Use whenever the user asks about a motor-vehicle statute, citation, contributing factor, OR a Canadian personal-injury fact pattern — always query Specter's Harvester API before answering. The API auto-routes between two collections (US statutes + Canadian PI case law).

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Assesses product liability exposure on given facts — classifying the defect as manufacturing, design, or warning/instruction, mapping which party in the supply chain is potentially exposed, and grading the realistic exposure. Use this whenever a user wants product liability worked through rather than a general deficiency test — including phrasings like "what's our exposure if this product injured someone", "is this a design defect or a manufacturing defect", "who in the supply chain is on the hook here", "assess our product liability risk on these facts", or "how exposed are we if the warning label was inadequate". Distinct from deficiency-analyst, which tests service and trade-practice thresholds — this is specific to defective products and supply-chain exposure. Fires for any product liability question, in any jurisdiction, for manufacturers, assemblers, sellers, distributors, or importers.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

KI-VO Hochrisiko-Anforderungen für Personalwesen in Kanzleien ab August 2026: Anwendungsfall Kanzlei setzt KI im HR-Bereich ein oder beraet Mandanten zum AGG-konformen KI-Einsatz bei Bewerberauswahl. Anhang III Nr. 4 KI-VO Hochrisiko Bewerberauswahl, Inkrafttreten 2. August 2026, AGG Diskriminierungsverbot. Prüfraster Hochrisiko-Klassifizierung eigener HR-KI, Konformitätsbewertung, Transparenzpflichten für Betroffene, Beratungsmandate Arbeitsrecht. Output Checkliste Hochrisiko-Anforderungen mit Umsetzungsplan für August 2026. Abgrenzung zu Bias-und-Diskriminierung-Prüfung und zu KI-VO-Betreiber-Pflichten.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Vorlagetabelle für Portfolio-Review von Arbeitsvertraegen im 3D-Format: Forderung/Prüfung/Stellung. Normen: BGB, KSchG, ArbZG. Prüfraster: Vertragsbedingungen, Klauselgueltigkeit, HR-Compliance. Output: Arbeitsvertrag-Portfolio-Tabelle. Abgrenzung: nicht allgemeine 3D-Review-Konfiguration.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Unternehmen oder Kanzlei muss IP-Portfolio verwalten und anstehende Fristen im Blick behalten. Schutzrechtsportfolio-Verwaltung. Prüfraster: Eintragungen Verlaengerungen Jahresgebühren Benutzungsnachweise Fristkalender. Output: Fristenkalender und Portfolio-Audit mit Luecken Verfall und Benutzungsfragen. Abgrenzung zu schutzschrift-eilverfuegung (Verletzungsverteidigung) und markenanmeldung-dpma.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Statusuebersicht aller laufenden Prozessmandate: Fristen, Verfahrensstand, naechste Schritte. Normen: ZPO, RVG. Prüfraster: Fristenliste, offene Anträge, Termine, Mahnfristen. Output: Portfolio-Statusbericht Prozessmandate. Abgrenzung: nicht Einzelmandat-Briefing.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Workflow-Skill zu aufklaerungsfehler beweisstrategie. Nutzt Normtext, Nutzerangaben und verifizierte Quellen; Rechtsprechung nur nach Live-Pruefung mit Gericht, Datum und Aktenzeichen.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Strukturierte Prüfung von Ansprüchen wegen Behandlungsfehler nach §§ 630a ff. BGB iVm § 823 BGB. Behandlungsvertrag Aufklärungspflicht § 630e BGB Dokumentationspflicht § 630f BGB Beweislastregeln § 630h BGB grober Behandlungsfehler Beweislastumkehr voll beherrschbares Risiko Anfaengerstandard Schmerzensgeld § 253 BGB. Schlichtungsstelle Aerztekammer MDK-Gutachten. Verjährung drei Jahre § 195 BGB Hoechstfrist dreissig Jahre § 199 Abs. 2 BGB.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Workflow-Skill zu fachanwalt medizinrecht aufklaerungsfehler. Nutzt Normtext, Nutzerangaben und verifizierte Quellen; Rechtsprechung nur nach Live-Pruefung mit Gericht, Datum und Aktenzeichen.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Behandlungsfehler §§ 630a 630h BGB Verletzung medizinischer Standard. Diagnosefehler Therapiefehler Befunderhebungsfehler Hygienefehler. Beweisregeln § 630h BGB Vermutung Kausalität bei grobem Behandlungsfehler § 630h Abs. 5 BGB Befunderhebungsfehler Dokumentationsmangel. Schadensersatzanspruch §§ 280 823 BGB Schmerzensgeld § 253 BGB. Verjährung drei Jahre § 195 BGB ab Kenntnis 30 Jahre Hoechstfrist.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Mandant hatte Verkehrsunfall und fragt: Wer haftet wie viel und welche Schadensposten koennen geltend gemacht werden? §§ 7 17 18 StVG iVm § 254 BGB Haftungsquote. Prüfraster: Betriebsgefahr beidseitig Anscheinsbeweis Auffahrunfall Spurwechsel Rotlicht Vorfahrt Mithaftung Tempo Sicherheitsabstand Anschnall. Schadenspositionen Reparatur fiktive Abrechnung Mietwagen Nutzungsausfall Sachverständige Schmerzensgeld. Output: Haftungsquoten-Berechnung und Schadenstabelle. Abgrenzung zu fachanwalt-verkehrsrecht-regulierungsanforderung (Gläubigerseite vs. Versicherer) und fachanwalt-verkehrsrecht-versicherer-quotenverhandlung-vergleich.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Verkehrsunfall-Mandat im Zivilprozess vorbereiten: Schadensersatz, Schmerzensgeld, Versicherungskorrespondenz. Normen: §§ 7 18 StVG, §§ 823 253 BGB, § 115 VVG. Prüfraster: Haftungsquote, Schadensposten, Verjaebrung, Regulierungsablauf. Output: Klageschrift Verkehrsunfall oder Klageerwiderung. Abgrenzung: nicht Strafrecht oder Ordnungswidrigkeiten.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Analyzes an entire portfolio of contracts at scale — extracting key terms, obligations, renewal dates, risk provisions, and financial commitments across hundreds or thousands of agreements simultaneously. Produces structured reports, obligation trackers, renewal calendars, and risk matrices. Also supports playbook-based redlining where contracts are compared against preferred positions and automatically marked up. Use when an in-house legal team, GC, legal ops, procurement, or finance team needs portfolio-wide visibility into contract terms, upcoming renewals, obligation compliance, or batch contract review against organizational standards.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Classifies personal vs non-personal data per GDPR Art. 4(1) definition test with decision tree for borderline cases. References Breyer v Germany CJEU C-582/14 dynamic IP ruling and WP29 Opinion 4/2007. Keywords: personal data, GDPR Art 4, data classification, Breyer ruling, identifiability test, PII.

ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open

Use when a matter involves marriage, divorce, property division, custody, or inheritance for non-Muslim residents of the UAE under Federal Decree-Law 41/2022 (the UAE Civil Personal Status Law) or the DIFC Wills Service Centre. Covers no-fault divorce, joint-custody default, equal-property division, testamentary freedom for non-Muslims, pre-nuptial agreement enforceability, and the parallel DIFC/ADGM wills regimes. Contrasts with the UAE Personal Status Law 28/2005 (Sharia-based) which governs Muslim residents. Triggers on non-Muslim divorce UAE, UAE civil marriage, DIFC wills, UAE prenup, or expat family law UAE questions.

関連スキル