Ready to supercharge your AI agents?

Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.

Litigation, Discovery und Evidence · thomasmoreai | DecimalAI

thomasmoreai/common-law-litigation-discovery

SkillScore77Maintained

Anwalt oder Mandant ist in UK/US-Gerichtsverfahren und will pleadings discovery disclosure depositions privilege evidence settlement verstehen. Prüfraster Verfahrensphasen-Überblick Privilege-Prüfung Discovery-Scope Settlement-Optionen. Output Verfahrens-Erklärung Checkliste. Abgrenzung zu common-law-interpretation-precedent (Praezedenz) und common-law-governing-law-jurisdiction (Rechtswahl).

legalby thomasmoreai

Links this skill to your agents and keeps it current with the author’s updates.

Automatic

Legal & Contracts pack

1 · One-time — install the CLI (docs ↗)

pip install decimalai

2 · Get the skill — writes .claude/skills/thomasmoreai-common-law-litigation-discovery/SKILL.md

decimalai skills pull thomasmoreai-common-law-litigation-discovery --out .claude/skills/

No CLI? Get the same file — curl · raw file

curl -fsSL --create-dirs -o .claude/skills/thomasmoreai-common-law-litigation-discovery/SKILL.md https://app.decimal.ai/s/thomasmoreai-common-law-litigation-discovery/SKILL.md

Raw file: /s/thomasmoreai-common-law-litigation-discovery/SKILL.md ↗ · machine-readable summary at /s/thomasmoreai-common-law-litigation-discovery.json ↗

In productionGlobal

how this skill behaves on real traffic · last 30 days

No production data for this skill yet — usage numbers appear here once agents start running it.

Anonymized aggregate across every org using this skill — proof from real production use, not a demo.

Does this skill help? · Benchmark: with vs. withoutsign in to run this on your agents

22 test cases from the publisher’s eval.yaml · each run twice on gemini-3.6-flash — with the skill injected, then without · last run 53d ago

Yes — +23% lift · at higher cost+47% tokens0% turns77% of whole cases pass with skill (17/22)

Test case	Without → With	Effect	Δ tokens	Δ turns
case-02	✗→✓	▲ Improved	10%	0%
case-03	✗→✓	▲ Improved	33%	0%
case-04	✗→✓	▲ Improved	40%	0%
case-11	✗→✓	▲ Improved	69%	0%
case-13	✗→✓	▲ Improved	66%	0%

Showing 5 of 22 cases

SkillSafety

✓ 3 of 3 passed

Code scan15 of 15 checks clean

0 critical · 0 warning · 0 info — scanner v4 — 8/2/2026

live_secretremote_code_executionreverse_shelldata_exfiltrationssrf_metadataagent_snoopinganti_refusaldestructive_commandsobfuscated_unicodeunicode_homoglyphopaque_blobsuspicious_urltool_overreachtrigger_abuseprompt_injection_phrasing

IntentSafe

LLM judge · does the skill do what it claims

ContentClean

LLM judge · policy & harmful-content review

Source

Imported

thomasmoreai / legal-skills-open

cross-jurisdiction/litigation/skills/common-law-litigation-discovery/SKILL.md

View on GitHub ↗

License Apache-2.0Imported 8/2/2026Version v1

Skill contents

SKILL.md

Litigation, Discovery und Evidence

Zweck

Deutsche ZPO-Erwartungen werden von discovery, disclosure, privilege, litigation hold und depositions getrennt.

Wann verwenden

bei Verträgen, Memos, Redlines, Übersetzungen oder Schulungen mit Common-Law-Bezug
wenn deutsche Rechtsbegriffe ins Englische übertragen werden
wenn UK/US-Unterschiede oder False Friends drohen

Arbeitsweise

Jurisdiktion fixieren. Rechtswahl, verbindliche Sprache, UK/US-Spur, Bundesstaat und Vertragstyp klären.
Begriff funktional prüfen. Nicht übersetzen, bevor Rechtsfolge, Parteirolle, Klauselzweck und Risiko feststehen.
False Friends markieren. Treffer mit Fundstelle, Risiko, besserer Formulierung und Review-Level ausgeben.
Ton steuern. Low-key erklären, aber bei Haftung, Streit und Mandatsgeheimnis nüchtern bleiben.
Qualitätstor setzen. Quellenstand, offene Annahmen, Local-Counsel-Bedarf und nächste Schritte dokumentieren.

Rückfragen, wenn unklar

Welche Rechtsordnung, Quelle oder verbindliche Fassung ist maßgeblich?
Welche Partei oder Rolle vertreten wir?
Soll mit echten, geschwärzten oder simulierten Daten gearbeitet werden?
Welches Arbeitsprodukt wird gebraucht und wie eilig ist es?

Ausgabeformat

Kurzlage mit Ampel
Prüfmatrix mit Fundstelle, Risiko, Vorschlag und Review-Level
anwaltlich prüfbarer Entwurf oder Mandantenhinweis
offene Annahmen, Quellenstand und nächste Schritte

Typische Fehler vermeiden

Bürgschaft, guarantee, suretyship und indemnity nicht gleichsetzen.
Consideration nicht als deutsche Gegenleistung behandeln.
UK, USA, New York, Delaware und UCC nicht vermischen.
Keine erfundenen Fälle oder Quellen verwenden.

Ton

Common-Law-Kompass arbeitet freundlich, präzise und verzeihend. Der Stil darf leicht sein, aber nie auf Kosten der juristischen Trennschärfe.

Triage

Before proceeding, clarify:

Is this UK (standard/specific disclosure, CPR) or US (discovery under FRCP) procedure?
Is e-discovery involved — volume, data formats, costs proportionality?
Is there privilege — legal advice privilege, litigation privilege, joint privilege?
Are there third-party disclosure orders (Norwich Pharmacal in UK)?

Key Case Law

Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No 6) 2004] UKHL 48, 2005] 1 AC 610 — Legal advice privilege: broad protection for communications seeking/giving legal advice; dominant purpose test for litigation privilege; independent review of documents for privilege by solicitor.
Norwich Pharmacal v Customs & Excise 1974] AC 133 (HL) — Third-party disclosure: court can order third party who facilitated wrong (however innocently) to disclose identity/documents; foundation of Norwich Pharmacal orders.
Perla Investments v Comber 2017] EWCA Civ 1251 — Standard disclosure: CPR 31.6; only relevant documents that a party relies on or that adversely affect a party's case; proportionality.
Upjohn Co v US 449 US 383 (1981) — US attorney-client privilege extends to in-house counsel communications to management; wider than UK (not limited to dominant purpose in all states).
Zubulake v UBS Warburg 217 FRD 309 (SDNY 2003) — E-discovery duty to preserve: litigation hold triggered upon reasonably anticipating litigation; costs shifting for inaccessible data.

Normen und Quellen

UK: CPR Part 31 (standard/specific disclosure); CPR r 31.19 (privilege); Evidence Act 1968
US: FRCP Rules 26, 30, 33, 34, 45 (discovery); ESI protocols
Hollander, Documentary Evidence (13th ed. 2022) — UK privilege and disclosure
Redgrave, Data Protection and E-Discovery (2023) — US/UK cross-border

Output Template: Disclosure / Discovery Review

Addressee: Internal litigation team Tone: Process-focused; privilege risks highlighted

DISCLOSURE / DISCOVERY REVIEW
Date: [DATE] — Matter: [DESCRIPTION]
Jurisdiction: [England/Wales CPR / US FRCP]

1. SCOPE OF DISCLOSURE
   UK Standard (CPR 31.6): [relevant documents defined as: ...]
   US Scope (FRCP 26(b)): [proportional; relevance to claims/defenses]
   Estimated document volume: [X documents / Y GB data]

2. PRIVILEGE REVIEW
   Legal advice privilege: [YES — comms with [solicitor/attorney] re legal advice]
   Litigation privilege: [YES — dominant purpose litigation / NO]
   In-house counsel: [covered UK Three Rivers / covered US Upjohn]
   Waiver risk: [document shared with [PARTY] — waived?]

3. E-DISCOVERY / ESI
   Litigation hold issued: [YES — [DATE] / NOT YET]
   Custodians: [NAME, ROLE]
   Data formats: [email / Slack / WhatsApp / cloud]
   Cost sharing (Zubulake): [proportionality request filed / not filed]

4. THIRD PARTY DISCLOSURE
   Norwich Pharmacal order applicable?: [YES / NO]
   FRCP 45 subpoena?: [YES / NO]

5. NEXT STEPS
   [ ] Issue litigation hold to [CUSTODIANS]
   [ ] Privilege log by [DATE]
   [ ] Disclosure list CPR / FRCP 26 disclosures by [DATE]

Illustrative Want to see what thomasmoreai/common-law-litigation-discovery would put in front of your model? Preview the rendered body and check its trigger phrases — no LLM call, no signup.

Latest benchmark · publisher runVerified

8/6/2026, 04:29 UTC · 22 cases

Lift

+23%

77% vs 55%

Agent turns

1.0 vs 1.0

Tokens

+47%

4,544.32 vs 3,086

fail → pass · 5pass → pass · 12fail → fail · 5

Per-case results (22)

Case	Status	Duration (ms)			Turns			Tokens			Tool calls
Case	Status	Without	With	Δ	Without	With	Δ	Without	With	Δ	Without	With	Δ
case-01 We are a German manufacturing company facing an impending breach of contract claim in the High Court of England and Wales. We need a litigation disclosure review prepared for our internal legal team. Please structure the report to cover disclosure scope under English rules, a privilege risk assessment (specifically addressing in-house advice and third-party sharing), e-discovery and document preservation obligations, potential third-party disclosure orders, and a checklist of immediate next steps.	fail→fail	25,875	22,953	-11%	1	1	0%	4,737	5,242	+11%	0	0	—
case-02 Our German software company is named as a defendant in a cross-border US federal court lawsuit involving FRCP discovery demands for email and chat data. We require a formal discovery review memo addressed to our internal litigation team. Please outline the expected scope, privilege analysis covering in-house attorney-client protections and waiver risks, ESI litigation hold requirements, third-party subpoena considerations, and recommended next steps.	fail→pass	22,829	20,581	-10%	1	1	0%	4,353	4,790	+10%	0	0	—
case-03 Wir beraten ein deutsches Unternehmen, das in einen Rechtsstreit nach Common Law verwickelt ist und deutsche ZPO-Konzepte auf Discovery-Pflichten anwenden möchte. Bitte erstellen Sie ein Gutachten nach Ihrem Standardformat: eine prägnante Lageeinschätzung mit Ampelbewertung, eine Matrix zur Risikoanalyse irreführender Rechtsbegriffe, eine praxisnahe Orientierungshilfe für Mandanten sowie eine Aufstellung verbleibender Annahmen und nächster Schritte.	fail→pass	21,482	19,808	-8%	1	1	0%	3,775	5,024	+33%	0	0	—
case-04 We need guidance on drafting a Berufungsbegründung under Section 520 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) for a purely domestic commercial dispute in the Landgericht Frankfurt. Outline the statutory deadlines and grounds for appeal.	fail→pass	17,820	21,107	+18%	1	1	0%	3,513	4,923	+40%	0	0	—
case-05 Draft a standard software license agreement under German law (BGB) between two local IT consultancies, focusing on warranty liability (Gewährleistung) and general terms and conditions (AGB-Recht) compliance.	pass→pass	20,860	18,197	-13%	1	1	0%	3,841	4,902	+28%	0	0	—
case-06 Our firm is conducting financial and corporate due diligence for an acquisition of a domestic Munich GmbH under German corporate law (GmbHG). Provide a due diligence checklist for corporate register filings and shareholder resolutions.	pass→pass	21,561	16,959	-21%	1	1	0%	4,093	4,689	+15%	0	0	—
case-07 In an English commercial litigation matter, opposing counsel argues that internal factual interview notes generated by company management during an internal audit must be disclosed under standard disclosure rules. Our team wants to assert legal advice privilege over these employee notes. How should legal advice privilege be evaluated for employee interviews under English law?	pass→pass	15,231	18,117	+19%	1	1	0%	2,733	4,513	+65%	0	0	—
case-08 A US-based counterparty sent our Munich office a pre-litigation demand letter alleging breach of a distribution agreement and threatening Federal District Court litigation. Internal IT asks whether we can proceed with routine monthly auto-deletion of internal Slack logs and employee emails.	pass→pass	11,182	15,022	+34%	1	1	0%	2,089	4,301	+106%	0	0	—
case-09 A German client discovered that an unknown party selling counterfeit goods online is using a UK bank account to receive payments. The client wants court intervention in London to compel the UK bank to reveal the account holder's identity prior to bringing formal substantive claims.	pass→pass	12,866	14,681	+14%	1	1	0%	2,383	4,063	+70%	0	0	—
case-10 Our corporate legal team has offices in New York and London. We need to assess whether factual communications between in-house counsel and non-executive operational managers are privileged under US federal law during an ongoing federal investigation.	pass→pass	14,382	18,204	+27%	1	1	0%	2,682	4,699	+75%	0	0	—
case-11 A German company entering into an English law supply contract wants to translate the German contract concept 'Gegenleistung' as 'consideration' in the draft agreement. Analyze whether this terminology translation is legally accurate.	fail→pass	13,394	14,941	+12%	1	1	0%	2,493	4,220	+69%	0	0	—
case-12 A Munich company negotiating a credit facility with a UK lender proposes using the terms 'Bürgschaft', 'guarantee', and 'indemnity' interchangeably across their English and German documentation. Evaluate the risks of this terminology usage.	pass→pass	20,771	15,781	-24%	1	1	0%	3,554	4,243	+19%	0	0	—
case-13 In a dispute before the Business and Property Courts in London, the claimant demands that our client search for and produce all documents that are broadly relevant to the general background of the commercial relationship. What is the correct scope of disclosure under English rules?	fail→pass	12,824	15,335	+20%	1	1	0%	2,365	3,929	+66%	0	0	—
case-14 In a Delaware federal civil suit, the plaintiff demands production of 15 terabytes of backup server tapes spanning ten years, where the damages in dispute total $200,000. How should the court or legal team evaluate this request under US federal procedure?	pass→pass	13,628	16,994	+25%	1	1	0%	2,643	4,649	+76%	0	0	—
case-15 During an internal engineering investigation conducted after an arbitration threat was received in London, a German company hired an independent technical expert to prepare a damages valuation report. Is this report protected under English litigation privilege?	pass→pass	12,082	13,730	+14%	1	1	0%	2,172	3,749	+73%	0	0	—
case-16 A German corporate defendant shared an unredacted legal opinion prepared by its London solicitors with an independent financial advisor to secure commercial advice. Does this distribution risk waiving legal advice privilege in subsequent English litigation?	pass→pass	14,043	14,305	+2%	1	1	0%	2,506	3,913	+56%	0	0	—
case-17 Our legal department needs an assessment of document production obligations and privilege risks for an ongoing cross-border contract dispute involving a US-UK joint venture and a German supplier. No court proceedings have been served yet.	fail→fail	17,161	15,741	-8%	1	1	0%	3,014	4,234	+40%	0	0	—
case-18 In a US Federal District Court lawsuit, our German client needs to obtain technical specifications directly from a non-party software vendor based in California. What procedural mechanism governs this discovery request?	pass→pass	10,240	12,792	+25%	1	1	0%	2,012	3,781	+88%	0	0	—
case-19 A Frankfurt company is subject to US federal e-discovery demands involving cloud-based messaging tools, Slack channels, and personal mobile devices of key managers. How should the electronic document collection process be structured?	fail→fail	16,894	25,197	+49%	1	1	0%	3,099	5,542	+79%	0	0	—
case-20 A German exporter sells equipment to buyers in New York and London under standard forms. The contract drafter claims that commercial contract principles under the US Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and English commercial law are identical regarding implied terms and performance. Evaluate this statement.	pass→pass	13,972	18,258	+31%	1	1	0%	3,037	4,923	+62%	0	0	—
case-21 In an English commercial litigation matter under CPR Part 31, claimant demands full disclosure of all internal draft agreements prepared during contract negotiations. How should this request be analyzed regarding relevance and proportionality?	fail→fail	14,862	15,336	+3%	1	1	0%	2,783	4,291	+54%	0	0	—
case-22 A German company's legal department wants a comparative brief on whether advice written by in-house European legal counsel receives legal privilege protection in UK litigation versus US litigation.	fail→fail	21,001	20,663	-2%	1	1	0%	4,015	5,355	+33%	0	0	—

These cases were also screened by the skill’s intent / safety pass.See the Trust review ↗Reproduce this benchmark in Colab ↗

How this skill was measured

DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +23 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.

Model measured: gemini-3.6-flash
Graded by: gemini-3.6-flash
Grading method: judged
Verification: verified
Pass rate without the skill: 54.6%
Pass rate with the skill: 77.3%
Cases attempted: 22
Cases counted toward lift: 22
Cases that regressed: 0
Skill version measured: v1
Run completed: 8/6/2026, 04:29 UTC

Measured example — same prompt, with vs. without the skill · from the benchmark run · case case-02

Prompt

Our German software company is named as a defendant in a cross-border US federal court lawsuit involving FRCP discovery demands for email and chat data. We require a formal discovery review memo addressed to our internal litigation team. Please outline the expected scope, privilege analysis covering in-house attorney-client protections and waiver risks, ESI litigation hold requirements, third-party subpoena considerations, and recommended next steps.

Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.

Show both answers

SkillScore blends 4 signals1 of 4 complete

BenchmarkPass rate WITH skill on a verified run77

Live evalNeeds ≥10 evaluated traces in 30 days

AI ratingNeeds ≥10 rated traces

AdoptionNeeds ≥10 serves across ≥2 orgs in 30 days

Efficiency · separate axis (at equal correctness)+0% turns+55% tokens

Shown for transparency; not credited unless a verified run shows no correctness regression.

Backed by 1 of 4 signals — each added signal makes the score more robust.

Verified on gemini-3.6-flash · re-tested 52 days ago

Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.