Triage an inbound demand letter — extract fields, cross-check the portfolio, assess merit, present response options with a recommendation, and hand off to matter-intake or demand-intake if escalation is warranted. Use when the user says "we got a demand letter", "triage this demand", or shares an incoming demand to evaluate.
Triage an inbound demand letter — extract fields, cross-check the portfolio, assess merit, present response options with a recommendation, and hand off to matter-intake or demand-intake if escalation is warranted. Use when the user says "we got a demand letter", "triage this demand", or shares an incoming demand to evaluate.
Extract fields; cross-check portfolio; assess merit; present options with recommendation.
Write ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/inbound/[slug]/triage.md. Copy or link incoming to ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/inbound/[slug]/incoming.[ext].
Hand off per user choice:
Create matter → matter-intake pre-populated
Respond with counter-demand → demand-intake pre-populated
Link to existing matter → update related_matters in log
Standalone → no further action
Demand Received
Purpose
Inbound demand letters are the bread and butter of an in-house litigation practice. A small fraction need escalation; most can be handled with a structured response or a holding letter. The failure mode is treating them all alike. This skill triages, cross-checks the portfolio, and produces options.
Load context
The incoming document (user provides path or drops it in-session)
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/_log.yaml — scan for related matters (same counterparty, overlapping counterparties via entity relationships, or matter type + recent date)
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md → risk calibration (for merit assessment), landscape (is the sender a frequent adversary?), demand-letter practice (house tone and response defaults)
Workflow
Step 1: Read the demand
Extract from the incoming:
Sender — entity, signer, counsel (if signed by outside firm)
Recipient — which entity/person at our company
Delivery — certified, email, courier (matters for deadline calculation)
Date received vs. date signed
Demand type — payment, breach/cure, C&D, preservation, settlement, other
Specific asks — what they want, by when
Facts alleged — their version of what happened
Legal basis — statutes, contract provisions, theories they cite
Threats — what they say they'll do if we don't comply
Settlement-communication framing — research the settlement-communication protections applicable in the forum (FRE 408 in federal, the state equivalent otherwise). Note whether the demand is marked as a settlement communication, but remember: protection attaches from conduct and context, not merely from labeling. Capture both the label (if any) and a first-pass read of whether the substance is in fact a compromise discussion.
Step 2: Portfolio cross-check
Search _log.yaml for:
Direct match — matter with same counterparty (their slug matches the sender)
Type match — similar matter type with this counterparty in the past (closed matters count — they inform pattern)
Subject overlap — matters where the subject might be the same dispute (e.g., same contract, same product, same project)
Present findings:
If direct match + active: flag as almost certainly the same matter; recommend adding incoming to the existing matter, not opening a new one. Update related_matters if it's a tangent.
If direct match + closed: flag — counterparty is back. May be a new dispute (open new matter) or a resurrected one (reopen or amend). User decides.
If type match: note as precedent/context; probably distinct matter but inform the response strategy.
If no match: novel. Treat as fresh.
Step 3: Merit assessment
Not a legal opinion — a structured read:
Facts — do the alleged facts align with what we know? Where's the disconnect?
Legal basis — are the cited provisions/statutes actually applicable? (Flag cites for user verification — do not attempt to validate law autonomously.)
Strength on their side — if they went to court tomorrow, what's their story?
Strength on our side — what are our likely defenses?
Damages demanded vs. likely — is the ask proportionate to what a court would award if they won?
Leverage and pressure — are they credibly prepared to sue? Do they have capacity? Are they a repeat-litigant adversary per ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md?
Output a triage rating: substantial merit / debatable / weak / frivolous. Be blunt. The user is triaging, not writing the brief.
Step 4: Response options
Present 3-4 options with tradeoffs:
Option A — substantive response
When: their demand has merit or is at least debatable; a reasoned reply protects the record
Tradeoff: commits us to a position in writing
Next step: /demand-intake with pre-populated fields for a counter-response letter
Option B — holding letter
When: need time to investigate; don't want to concede anything or trigger their deadline math
When: early resolution is cheaper than litigation; willing to discuss without admitting
Tradeoff: settlement-communication posture required — research the applicable rule (FRE 408 or state equivalent) and structure the response so the substance, not just the label, qualifies as a compromise discussion. Must be careful not to waive claims.
Next step: /demand-intake with type: settlement-response
Option D — ignore + preserve
When: demand is frivolous or the deadline doesn't create legal prejudice
Tradeoff: silence can be used against us in some contexts (e.g., account stated); legal hold still required
Next step: issue legal hold via /legal-hold --issue if not already; log the demand and move on
Recommend one. Be specific about why.
Step 5: Deadline triage
Their stated deadline — note it, but it doesn't bind us
Our internal deadline — when we must decide (often: stated deadline minus 5 business days to draft + approve)
Flag any legal deadlines that are tight. Calendar them.
No silent supplement. If the inbound demand cites rules, cases, or statutes that require verification, and a research query to the configured legal research tool (Westlaw, CourtListener, Trellis, Descrybe, or firm platform) returns few or no results for a given authority, report what was found and stop. Do NOT fill the gap from web search or model knowledge without asking. Say: "The search returned [N] results from [tool]. Coverage appears thin for [cite / doctrine]. Options: (1) broaden the search query, (2) try a different research tool, (3) search the web — results will be tagged [web search — verify] and should be checked against a primary source before relying, or (4) leave the [SME VERIFY] flag and stop here. Which would you like?" A lawyer decides whether to accept lower-confidence sources; the skill does not decide for them.
Source attribution. Tag every citation carried into the triage — including the sender's cited authorities, our response-option rationales, and any research pulled for merit assessment — with where it came from: [Westlaw], [CourtListener], [Trellis], [Descrybe], or the MCP tool name for citations retrieved from a legal research connector; [web search — verify] for web-search citations; [model knowledge — verify] for citations recalled from training data; [user provided] for citations supplied in the demand itself. Citations tagged verify carry higher fabrication risk and should be checked first. Never strip or collapse the tags.
[WORK-PRODUCT HEADER — per plugin config ## Outputs — differs by role; see `## Who's using this`]
> **Privilege inheritance.** This triage is derived from the inbound demand and from the portfolio log, and it records our first-pass merit read and response posture. Those internal analyses are attorney-client and/or work-product material. Distributing this triage beyond the privilege circle — including forwarding it to the business lead without marking, sharing with the counterparty, or attaching to an insurance tender without scrubbing — can waive protection over both this document and the reasoning inside it. Store with privileged matter material, mark consistently with house privilege conventions, and make distribution decisions deliberately.# Demand Received — Triage> **READ FOR TRIAGE, NOT OPINION.** This document is an intake scan and an options analysis — not a legal merit opinion. The `Triage rating` below is a structured read to support the counsel's decision on how to route the demand. It is not a recommendation on the merits and does not substitute for case-specific legal analysis. Every cited statute, rule, or case is flagged for SME verification; every merit call is the counsel's, not this skill's.**Slug:** [slug]
**Received:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Received by:** [entity / person]
**Incoming file:** [path]
---
## The demand**Sender:** [entity, signer, counsel]
**Demand type:** [type]
**Specific asks:** [list]
**Their stated deadline:** [date]
**Settlement-communication framing:** [labeled / substantively / neither / ambiguous] — *protection turns on conduct and context, not the label; `[SME VERIFY]` against the forum's applicable rule*## Facts alleged
[their version, in one paragraph]
## Legal basis cited
[citations — each inline-flagged with `[SME VERIFY: applicability / currency / jurisdiction]` — do not rely on any citation here without independent check]
## Threats / next steps they state
[list]
---
## Portfolio cross-check**Direct match:** [slug if exists, or "none"]
**Type match / precedent:** [list or "none"]
**Subject overlap:** [list or "none"]
**Recommendation:** [new matter / add to existing / link via related_matters / standalone inbound]
---
## Merit assessment
**Facts:** [alignment with our version; disconnects]
**Legal basis:** [applicability, with flags]
**Their case if litigated:** [one paragraph]
**Our defenses:** [one paragraph]
**Damages proportionality:** [assessment]
**Credibility of threat:** [will they sue? capacity? repeat litigant?]
**Triage rating:** [substantial / debatable / weak / frivolous] — *structured read for routing, not a merit opinion; `[SME VERIFY: counsel to confirm before relying on this]`*
---
## Response options
### A. Substantive response
[Rationale, tradeoffs, next step]
### B. Holding letter
[Rationale, tradeoffs, next step]
### C. Settlement response
[Rationale, tradeoffs, next step]
### D. Ignore + preserve
[Rationale, tradeoffs, next step]
**Recommendation:** [A/B/C/D] — [two sentences why] — `[SME VERIFY: counsel to confirm before executing]`
---
## Deadlines
- **Their stated deadline:** [date]
- **Our internal decision deadline:** [date]
- **Legal deadlines:** [SoL, cure periods, procedural — with dates]
---
## Immediate actions
- [ ] Legal hold issued — [yes/no] — if no, run `/legal-hold [slug] --issue`
- [ ] Matter created in log — [yes/no/TBD]
- [ ] Counsel assigned — [who]
- [ ] Insurance tendered — [yes/no/N-A]
- [ ] Internal escalation (GC/CFO/business lead) — [who/when]
Step 7: Hand off
Based on recommendation and user confirmation:
Matter creation → hand off to /matter-intake with: counterparty, type, source: demand-letter (inbound), initial theory framed defensively, pre-populated.
Counter-response as outbound demand → hand off to /demand-intake with: counterparty, context from triage, desired outcome as the response.
Link to existing matter → update that matter's related_matters in _log.yaml; append event to its history.md.
Standalone → leave in ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/inbound/; no portfolio change.
Close with the next-steps decision tree
End with the next-steps decision tree per CLAUDE.md ## Outputs. Customize the options to what this skill just produced — the five default branches (draft the X, escalate, get more facts, watch and wait, something else) are a starting point, not a lock-in. The tree is the output; the lawyer picks.
What this skill does not do
Validate cited law. Flags cites for the user to run through a citator (verify it is good law) or check with outside counsel. Inventing legal analysis on inbound demands is malpractice exposure.
Send a response. Drafts are drafted in demand-draft; this skill stops at the triage decision.
Decide merit definitively. The rating is a read for triage; a formal merit opinion lives with outside counsel or more thorough analysis.
Make the matter-creation call. Surfaces the recommendation; user decides.
