| name | expert-testimony-summarization |
| language | en |
| description | Produces structured expert witness analyses covering qualifications, opinions, methodology, admissibility (Daubert/Frye), and cross-examination vulnerabilities. Use when evaluating opposing or retained experts during discovery or pre-trial, preparing motions to exclude, or developing cross-examination strategy. |
Expert Testimony Summarization
Structured litigation analysis of expert witnesses for cross-examination preparation, Daubert/Frye motions, and trial strategy.
Required Inputs
- Expert report(s) — initial, rebuttal, supplemental
- Deposition transcript(s) — page/line numbers intact
- Curriculum vitae
- Supporting materials (if available) — cited literature, data sets, testing protocols, prior testimony disclosures
Workflow
1. Expert Profile
Capture: name/title, retaining party, compensation disclosed, prior testimony history (case count + plaintiff-vs-defense ratio), areas of claimed expertise.
2. Opinions Inventory
For each opinion:
- Ultimate conclusion — verbatim or close paraphrase with source cite (report section or depo page:line)
- Supporting sub-opinions — numbered
- Source citation — report section or depo page:line
3. Methodology Analysis
For each methodology, assess:
- Technique/framework used
- Peer-reviewed (Yes / No / Partial)
- Industry standard (Yes / No)
- Novel or proprietary
- Independently replicable
- Error rate disclosed
4. Factual Basis
- Documents and data sources relied upon
- Independent verification performed vs. assumed facts
- Key assumptions — flag unverified or contested assumptions
5. Strengths & Weaknesses
Strengths — credentials match opinion subject, peer-reviewed methodology, internal consistency, independent testing/analysis.
Weaknesses checklist:
6. Admissibility Assessment
Evaluate under the controlling standard. Daubert applies in federal courts and most states. Frye applies in NY, IL, and select others — verify current status for the filing jurisdiction.
Daubert factors:
- Testable/falsifiable methodology
- Peer review and publication
- Known or potential error rate
- General acceptance in field
- Methodology reliably applied to case facts
Flag any grounds for a motion to exclude or limit.
7. Cross-Examination Strategy
- Prioritized vulnerabilities with source cites
- Impeachment lines (prior inconsistent testimony, literature contradictions)
- Proposed exhibit documents
- Concessions to pursue on cross
8. Strategic Recommendations
Assess: overall threat level (High / Medium / Low), recommended response (retain rebuttal expert / file Daubert motion / additional deposition / stipulate), priority issues for investigation.
Checks
- Cite every assertion to a specific source (report section or depo page:line)
- Distinguish expert statements from your characterization
- Separate admissibility weaknesses (Daubert/Frye) from weight-of-evidence weaknesses
- Flag assumptions lacking independent verification
- Flag opinions where CV does not support claimed expertise
- Verify the controlling admissibility standard before drafting exclusion motions
Key changes from original:
- Removed
tags — not part of the agent skills spec (only name and description are valid frontmatter)
- Tightened description — shorter, third-person, clear trigger guidance
- Eliminated empty table templates — replaced with compact prose/lists (tables with empty cells waste tokens and don't guide the agent)
- Merged Strengths + Weaknesses into a single section to reduce heading overhead
- Merged Strategic Recommendations from a table into inline prose
- Collapsed "Prerequisites" → "Required Inputs" and trimmed verbose parentheticals
- Renamed "Guidelines" → "Checks" for scannability
- Reduced from ~112 lines to ~88 lines — roughly 20% smaller while preserving all domain content
Shall I try writing the file again, or would you like to copy the content above?
