ai-inventory
EU AI Act per-system inventory — track each AI system's role (provider, deployer, importer,…
Build or review an element chart — a patent claim chart (infringement, invalidity, or review) or a civil element chart for any cause of action or defense — with every cell pin-cited and gap detection as the priority output. Use when the user asks for a claim chart, element
$ npx -y skills add anthropics/claude-for-legal --skill claim-chart --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
/claim-chartContext preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Build or review an element chart — a patent claim chart (infringement, invalidity, or review) or a civil element chart for any cause of action or defense — with every cell pin-cited and gap detection as the priority output. Use when the user asks for a claim chart, element
name: claim-chart description: Build or review an element chart — a patent claim chart (infringement, invalidity, or review) or a civil element chart for any cause of action or defense — with every cell pin-cited and gap detection as the priority output. Use when the user asks for a claim chart, element chart, proof chart, infringement or invalidity contention, element-by-element mapping, or asks "what are we missing to prove [claim]". argument-hint: '[--patent | --civil] [--infringement | --invalidity | --review] [--claim <n>] [--count <name>] [--target <slug>]'
1. Load `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md` → role, work-product header, decision posture, document storage. 2. If matter workspaces enabled, confirm or select the active matter; load `matter.md` (side, jurisdiction, phase, theory, pleadings). 3. Follow the workflow and reference below. 4. Mode selection:
5. For civil mode: consult `references/element-templates.md` in the skill directory for the baseline element list. Confirm the controlling pattern instruction or statute with the user before mapping. 6. For patent mode: parse asserted claims into elements, flag disputed terms for construction, apply any Markman order. 7. Map elements against the target (accused product / prior art / evidence corpus / chart under review). Every cell pin-cited. Apply the apostrophe-prefix neutralization before writing any cell value starting with `=`, `+`, `-`, `@`, tab, or CR. 8. Produce the gap list (civil) or needs-evidence list (patent) — the priority output. 9. Write markdown, CSV (values + `_sources` companion), and Excel or Sheets per user preference. Work-product header on every output. 10. Write to the matter's `claim-charts/` folder if a matter is active; otherwise the practice-level `claim-charts/` folder. Append a one-line entry to `history.md` if a matter is active. 11. Return a summary readout: claim(s), target(s), jurisdiction, phase, element counts by state, the gap list, file paths, and the reminder that every cell is a lead.
---
Before working with a set of litigation documents, ask: "Were any of these documents obtained through disclosure or discovery in legal proceedings?" If yes:
Confirm: "This use is within the proceedings in which the documents were disclosed, or I have permission / consent, or the documents are now public." If not confirmed, flag it: "⚠️ Disclosed documents may have use restrictions. Confirm this use is permitted before proceeding."
**Put this at the top of every output. Do not drop it. Do not soften it.**
> This chart is a draft for attorney analysis and verification, not a filed contention, an MSJ brief, an opening statement, or a legal opinion. Every mapping is a lead the attorney must verify against the source. The elements listed come from pattern jury instructions, the Restatement, or the claim language as parsed — the **controlling** authority in the user's jurisdiction (CACI / NYPJI / the circuit's pattern charge / the governing statute / a Markman order) may differ and always controls. Gap detection is a starting point for discovery or a motion; it is not a conclusion about the merits.
Under-flagging a gap is a one-way door — a complaint filed without plausibility on an element, an MSJ response served without evidence for a disputed element, or a case tried without proof of damages. Over-flagging is a two-way door — the attorney clears flags in review. The default is biased toward the two-way door.
---
Check `## Matter workspaces` in the practice-level CLAUDE.md. If `Enabled` is `✗` (the default for in-house users), skip the rest of this paragraph — skills use practice-level context and the matter machinery is invisible. If enabled and there is no active matter, ask: "Which matter is this for? Run `/litigation-legal:matter-workspace switch <slug>` or say `practice-level`." Load the active matter's `matter.md` — especially the case theory, the pleading / complaint (for the elements actually alleged), the jurisdiction, any Markman order or stipulated constructions (patent mode), and the phase of the case. Write outputs to the matter folder at `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/<matter-slug>/claim-charts/`. Never read another matter's files unless `Cross-matter context` is `on`.
---
Reference agents, skills, and data connectors for the legal workflows we see most — in-house commercial, privacy, product, corporate, employment, litigation, regulatory, AI governance, IP, and the learning side of the practice (law school clinics and
EU AI Act per-system inventory — track each AI system's role (provider, deployer, importer,…
Run an AI impact assessment — structured intake, risk analysis, regulatory classification per…
Run the cold-start interview — learns your AI governance practice and writes…
Guided customization of your AI governance practice profile — change one thing without…
Manage matter workspaces — new, list, switch, close, or detach (practice-level).…
Keep the AI policy current with practice — weekly sweep of saved AIAs, triage results, and…