Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →anthropics/deposition-prep
Build a deposition outline for a witness — pull their documents from the eDiscovery platform, organize topics around the case theory, and surface impeachment material.
Passed 21 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 9 of 22 without it.
and 14 more in the full report
12 fixed9 passed either way1 still failing0 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 12 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
In drafting a background section for a witness outline, we have an unconfirmed claim that the witness resigned in March 2022, but this hasn't been verified against the record file. What inline marker must be applied?
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Applies the inline marker `[VERIFY: factual assertion]` to the unconfirmed fact. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md → case theory, key facts.If the user's jurisdiction includes England & Wales and they're asking for a trial witness statement for the Business & Property Courts (or any CPR-governed proceeding), PD 57AC applies. The statement must be in the witness's own words, must not contain argument, must identify the documents the witness used to refresh their memory, and must carry the required confirmation of compliance and the legal representative's certificate.
Drafting a narrative "as the witness" from a chronology, document set, or your account of the case is exactly what PD 57AC was designed to prevent. Courts are actively sanctioning AI-assisted witness statement drafting. If you ask me to do it, I won't.
What I WILL do: prepare question prompts to elicit the witness's actual recollection; capture and organize what the witness says (their words, not mine); generate the list of documents they were shown; run a PD 57AC compliance checklist against a statement they've drafted; draft the solicitor's certificate of compliance. I help you get the witness's evidence into the statement. I don't write the evidence.
For US depositions, declarations, and affidavits: different rules, but the same discipline applies. A declaration in the declarant's voice that the declarant didn't write is a credibility problem at best.
Before producing output, check where it's going. If the user has named a destination (a channel, a distribution list, a counterparty, "everyone"), ask whether it's inside the privilege circle. Public channels, company-wide lists, counterparty/opposing counsel, vendors, and clients (for work product) waive the protection. When the destination looks outside the circle, flag it and offer (a) the privileged version for legal only, (b) a sanitized version for the broader channel, or (c) both — don't silently apply a privileged header and then help paste it somewhere the header won't protect it. See the canonical ## Shared guardrails → Destination check in this plugin's CLAUDE.md.
A depo outline is a map: background → lock in the good facts → confront with the bad ones → box in on the theory. This skill builds the map from the documents and the case theory.
Two rules that govern every citation and every quotation pulled from the record into this outline. Canonical statement lives in the plugin's CLAUDE.md shared guardrails; repeated here because an impeachment confrontation built on a misquoted prior statement or a misgrounded transcript cite collapses the impeachment.
Verbatim quotes from the record must be verbatim. Never put quotation marks around words attributed to opposing counsel, the witness, another deponent, the court, or any record document unless you have the exact passage in front of you and can cite to it. When you want to characterize what someone said but can't find the exact words:
[verify against record — Tr. p. __]."[verify exact quote — record cite pending][verify exact quote] must be flagged in the reviewer note.Pinpoint cites must support the whole proposition. If an impeachment point is "the witness said X, Y, and Z on [date]," verify the pinpoint cite supports X AND Y AND Z. If it only supports Z, split the cite — "said X (Tr. p. 10), Y (Tr. p. 12), Z (Tr. p. 15)" — or narrow the proposition. A cite that supports part of an impeachment is the failure mode where opposing counsel asks the witness to read more of the surrounding transcript and your confrontation falls apart.
test cases passed, vs 9 / 22 without
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.