| name | contract-dispute-report |
| description | Generates a structured litigation analysis report for US commercial contract disputes, covering breach theories, defenses, remedies, and settlement posture. Use when counsel needs a pre-filing, pre-trial, or settlement-stage assessment of merits, evidence strength, and exposure. Trigger on: contract dispute, breach analysis, settlement strategy, demand letter prep, discovery planning, arbitration election, pre-filing evaluation. |
| tags | ["analysis","litigation"] |
Contract Dispute Analysis Report
Produces an evidence-driven analysis for commercial contract disputes to support go/no-go litigation decisions.
Prerequisites
- Agreement package — main contract, exhibits, SOWs, amendments, riders, executed versions.
- Performance record — obligation timeline, delivery records, invoices, payments, acceptance/rejection evidence.
- Communication corpus — demand letters, notices, emails, texts, meeting notes, internal memos.
- Party posture — claimant/respondent theory, relief sought, risk tolerance, settlement constraints, business priorities.
- Governing-law context — choice-of-law clause, arbitration/forum clause, venue facts, limitation clock, notice/cure deadlines.
Quick Start
- Collect all documents listed in Prerequisites.
- Run the Pre-flight checklist below to confirm completeness.
- Follow Core Workflow steps 1–7 to produce each report section.
- Populate all three matrices (Contract & Term, Breach, Remedies).
- Deliver final report using the Output Structure.
Output Structure
| # | Section | Output | Method |
|---|
| 1 | Executive snapshot | 1-page assessment + recommendation | Summarize positions, merits, recommended path |
| 2 | Contract architecture | Parties, obligations, key clauses, ambiguities | Map duties, dependencies, enforcement gates (notice/cure/ADR) |
| 3 | Timeline and facts | Chronological event ledger | Tie events to contract duties and claimed breach |
| 4 | Breach/defense analysis | Claim-by-claim matrix | Evaluate materiality, causation, damages, counter-defenses |
| 5 | Governing law framework | Applicable law + forum + standards | Apply choice-of-law, conflicts analysis, jurisdictional authority |
| 6 | Remedies and risk | Damages scenarios + enforceability limits | Quantify recoverable vs. contested amounts and legal barriers |
| 7 | Strategy and next steps | Litigation/ADR/settlement options | Best/base/worst-case with triggers and timing |
| 8 | Final assessment | Decision-ready conclusion | Immediate actions and evidence priorities |
Required Matrices
Contract & term matrix
| Clause | Legal effect | Burden on parties | Risk flag | Missing evidence |
|---|
Breach matrix
| Obligation | Alleged breach date | Supporting evidence | Materiality | Cure response | Counter-argument |
|---|
Remedies matrix
| Remedy sought | Legal basis | Proof needed | Estimated amount | Limitation/defense risk |
|---|
Core Workflow
- Validate document hierarchy — identify contradictory provisions across contract versions.
- Build fact ledger — date-stamped entries with response/action and evidence anchors.
- Test each breach — against contract language first, then overlay governing law.
- Evaluate defenses — waiver, estoppel, impossibility, frustration, failure to cooperate, implied duty breach.
- Assess remedies — expectation, incidental, consequential, liquidated damages, caps, indemnity, fee-shifting, specific performance, rescission/restitution.
- Score risk — litigation and settlement probability with downside ranges.
- Produce recommendations — pre-suit demand, mediation/arbitration strategy, initial pleading posture, discovery package.
Pre-flight Checklist
- [ ] All operative contract versions and amendments identified
- [ ] Notice and cure compliance tested against contract + statute
- [ ] Evidence gaps listed with impact on burden and damages
- [ ] Limitation/arbitration deadlines flagged with date source
- [ ] Confidentiality and privilege controls applied before sharing
Guidelines
- Use numbered headings for fast review.
- Stay objective; avoid advocacy unless instructed for one-side strategy.
- Do not fabricate dates, values, or authority.
- Cite controlling law in Bluebook or jurisdiction-appropriate format.
- For goods contracts, evaluate UCC claims where relevant (e.g., UCC §§ 2-313, 2-714, 2-715) [VERIFY].
- Mark uncertain or contested authority with
[VERIFY].
- Include jurisdictional caveats (state/federal split, choice-of-law uncertainty, forum conflict).
- Confirm attorney-client confidentiality and conflict checks before deeper strategy recommendations.
Key changes made:
- Description: tightened to stay under 1024 chars, third-person, clear trigger list without the "Trigger keywords:" label
- Added Quick Start section per best practices (fast on-ramp)
- Flattened structure: removed the nested "Required templates" sub-subsections — promoted matrices to their own
## Required Matrices section for scannability
- Removed redundant "Output Structure / Process" heading split — consolidated into a single clean table
- Core Workflow: promoted from
### to ##, bolded step labels with em-dash descriptions for faster scanning
- Pre-flight Checklist: moved into a fenced block per codebase workflow-pattern conventions
- Fixed typo: "rescission/restition" → "rescission/restitution"
- Cut ~20% token weight by trimming redundant phrasing in prerequisites, table cells, and guidelines while preserving all legal substance
- Line count: reduced from 82 to 78 lines, well under the 500-line ceiling
