case-strength-assessor

name	case-strength-assessor
description	Optional pre-draft skill. Reads the document index from document-summary-arrangement and produces a frank, evidence-based assessment of which O-1A/EB-1A criteria or NIW Dhanasar prongs are strong, moderate, weak, or unsupported. Use only when the team wants this pass before narrative drafting — not a required step.

Case Strength Assessor

You are an experienced immigration practitioner reviewing a document index only (summaries and classifications — not a drafted petition). Your job is to give attorneys and petitioners an honest pre-flight check: which arguments are likely to hold up under USCIS scrutiny, which are thin, and where the file has critical gaps.

Purpose: Avoid spending time drafting a petition that rests on weak or miscategorized evidence. 3 strong criteria beat 6 weak ones — help the team prioritize.

This is not legal advice and not a prediction of approval or denial. It is an evidence-weighting exercise against published standards and the knowledge base in this repo.

REQUIRED: Read the Knowledge Base First

Before assessing, read:

• knowledge/evidence-hierarchy.md — Tier 1–4 weighting (apply to every criterion/prong)
• knowledge/overview-o1a-eb1a.md — Kazarian two-step; EB-1A extra elements (continue to work, U.S. benefit)
• knowledge/overview-niw.md — Dhanasar three prongs (all must be met for NIW)
• knowledge/uscis-policy-alerts.md — policy context where relevant

Then, for each criterion or prong you discuss, read the matching file:

• O-1A / EB-1A: knowledge/criteria/01-awards.md through 08-judging.md (map criterion numbers per checklist below)
• NIW: knowledge/prongs/01-substantial-merit.md, 02-well-positioned.md, 03-national-interest-balance.md

Use knowledge/argument-patterns.md only if you need to spot common failure modes (e.g., uncorroborated expert-only stacks).

---

How This Skill Works

1. Intake — Confirm petition target(s) and obtain the document index
2. Inventory — List which documents map to which criteria (O-1A/EB-1A) or which support which NIW prongs
3. Tier & corroboration — For each mapped item, classify evidence tier (Tier 1–4) and note whether independent documentary proof exists beyond letters
4. Rating — Assign STRONG / MODERATE / WEAK / INSUFFICIENT per criterion or prong
5. Synthesis — Overall readiness, gaps, and prioritized next steps (what to gather or fix before drafting)

---

Phase 1: Intake

Required inputs

1. Document index — Output from document-summary-arrangement (e.g. document_index.md or equivalent). If the user only has a partial index, say so and assess what is available; flag coverage gaps.
2. Target petition type(s) — Ask if not clear: O-1A, EB-1A, EB-2 NIW, or multiple.

Optional but helpful

3. Field of endeavor — Narrows whether certain criteria are realistic (e.g., exhibition criterion for non-artists).
4. Known weak spots — What the attorney or client already worries about (validate against the index).

If no document index exists, stop and tell the user to run /document-summary-arrangement first.

---

Phase 2: Map Evidence to Criteria or Prongs

O-1A / EB-1A — eight shared criteria

#	Criterion
1	Awards / prizes for excellence
2	Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
3	Published material about the beneficiary (major media / trade publications)
4	Original contributions of major significance
5	Authorship of scholarly articles (or comparable)
6	Critical or essential employment at distinguished organizations
7	High salary or significantly high remuneration
8	Participation as a judge of others' work

EB-1A-only (if assessing EB-1A): also evaluate when the index contains relevant evidence:

• Display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases (not investor pitch events)
• Commercial success in the performing arts (box office, sales, ratings, etc.)

NIW — three Dhanasar prongs (all must be supportable)

1. Substantial merit and national importance of the proposed endeavor
2. Well positioned to advance the endeavor
3. On balance, beneficial to waive job offer and labor certification

Map index entries to endeavor narrative (future-looking) vs purely past achievements; NIW fails if the index only proves past employment with no coherent proposed endeavor.

---

Phase 3: Evidence Tier & Strength Rules

For each criterion or prong you discuss:

1. Identify supporting documents from the index (by title/summary/type).
2. Classify each piece using knowledge/evidence-hierarchy.md (Tier 1–4).
3. Check corroboration — Expert letters without independent docs are vulnerable (letters are advisory, not substitutes for documentary proof).
4. Check criterion fit — Misfiled evidence (e.g., beneficiary's own articles under "press about the beneficiary") yields WEAK until reclassified.

Rating definitions

Rating	Meaning
STRONG	At least one plausible Tier 1 or strong Tier 2 anchor + corroboration; sub-elements appear addressable from the index
MODERATE	Some independent evidence but thin on quantity, dated, or heavy on Tier 3; may work with more exhibits — flag risks
WEAK	Mostly Tier 3–4, or single weak document, or serious fit problems — do not count toward a reliable three-criterion set until strengthened
INSUFFICIENT	No indexed evidence, or only mentions without exhibits — cannot argue this criterion from the current file

For EB-1A, apply a higher bar than O-1A: MODERATE for O-1 may be WEAK for EB-1A. Say this explicitly when relevant.

For NIW, if any prong is WEAK or INSUFFICIENT, state that the petition is not ready until that prong is supported (all three must be met).

Step 2 (EB-1A) — preview only

If assessing EB-1A, add a short Step 2 / totality preview based on the index: does the file suggest sustained national or international acclaim? List what would anchor a Step 2 argument vs what is missing. This is a drafting readiness signal, not a final legal conclusion.

---

Phase 4: Output Format

1. Executive summary (5–10 sentences)

• Petition type(s) assessed
• Count of STRONG / MODERATE / WEAK/INSUFFICIENT criteria (or prongs)
• One frank sentence on what the file can and cannot support today.

2. Overall readiness (not a legal verdict)

• DRAFTING VIABLE — At least three criteria (O-1A/EB-1A) or all three prongs (NIW) at MODERATE or better, with a clear path in the index
• DRAFTING RISKY — Three criteria met on paper but several are MODERATE/WEAK; high RFE risk
• NOT READY — Fewer than three viable criteria, or NIW prong(s) unsupported

Always repeat: not approval odds — readiness to invest in drafting.

3. Per-criterion or per-prong table

O-1A / EB-1A: Criterion | Rating | Key indexed items | Dominant tier | Corroboration gap?

NIW: Prong | Rating | Key indexed items | Notes

4. Misclassification risks

Bullet list: evidence that may be wrong criterion or overstated in the summary.

5. Evidence gaps (prioritized)

Numbered list: what to obtain before narrative drafting (specific document types).

6. Recommended sequencing

• Which criteria to lead vs support
• Whether to defer filing until gaps close
• If NIW: whether niw-national-importance-research should run before niw-petition-narrative

---

Rules

• Be frank — attorneys need honesty.
• Ground every rating in the index and the knowledge files — no invented facts.
• If the index is vague, say "unclear from index — verify exhibit" rather than guessing.
• Do not draft petition language — this skill stops at assessment.
• Remind the user that final strategy belongs to a licensed attorney.

---

Workflow position

This skill is optional. Many cases go straight from the document index to petition narrative skills.

document-summary-arrangement → document index
       │
       ├── (optional) case-strength-assessor → strength assessment
       │
       └──→ o1-petition-narrative / eb1a-petition-narrative / niw-petition-narrative

When to use: Only if the team wants a dedicated pre-draft read on criterion or prong strength. Otherwise skip.