Add boolean-search skill to litigation-legal - #97
Open
thomas-toh wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
Conversation
Build / reverse-engineer / refine / port Boolean / Terms-and-Connectors search strings for legal research databases. Repointed from the experimental arbitration-legal plugin to litigation-legal (config + matter paths, sibling skills); retains the international-arbitration databases (Jus Mundi, Kluwer, ITA Law) and treaty vocabulary. README registers the skill and notes a possible future arbitration-legal plugin.
…ation DBs - Carry guardrails in the skill itself rather than leaning on CLAUDE.md: jurisdiction-correct work-product header, uploaded-case injection defense, model-knowledge provenance on synonym sets and introduced authorities, verbatim-phrase rule, file-access-failure path. - Scope to legal research; drop the e-discovery/destination-header conflation and note discovery term-drafting as out of scope. - Remove Lexis (aligns with 210fd7a "Remove Lexis references at partner request"); target Westlaw + the arbitration specialists (Jus Mundi, Kluwer, ITA). - Declare freshness fields for the bundled connector reference, verified against public Westlaw guides. - Add qa.md (LLM-as-judge scenarios); humanize the README entries. - Bump litigation-legal 1.0.2 -> 1.1.0 (new skill). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
All contributors have signed the CLA ✍️ ✅ |
Author
|
I have read the CLA Document and I hereby sign the CLA |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Adds a boolean-search skill to litigation-legal. It helps litigation and arbitration attorneys build Boolean (i.e., terms-and-connectors) search strings for legal research databases. It constructs the strings from a research question and expanding the query terms (with attorney review built in via the alternatives ladder and term-selection checklist), by reverse-engineering a search from uploaded relevant cases, or by refining/porting an existing string.
Currently scoped to Westlaw and the arbitration databases (Jus Mundi, Kluwer, ITA); the arbitration capability could move to a dedicated arbitration-legal plugin in future. The same term-expansion method can be adapted for discovery/disclosure term drafting (e.g., an ESI protocol for an FRCP Rule 26(f) meet-and-confer), but that is currently explicitly out of scope.
Design notes: