/demand-draft

name: demand-draft
description: Draft a demand letter from a completed intake, gated on a privilege / FRE 408 / waiver / admission checklist, with a .docx output, post-send checklist, and an offer to create a matter. Use when the user says "draft the demand", "write the [type] letter", or has a finished demand intake ready to turn into a sendable draft.
argument-hint: "[slug] [--skip-gate] [--version=N]"

/demand-draft

1. Load `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/demand-letters/[slug]/intake.md`. Refuse if missing or strategic block empty (for material demands). 2. Load `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md` → demand-letter practice, house style, seed-doc table. 3. Follow the workflow and reference below. 4. Run the pre-draft gate: privilege filter, admission risk, accord-and-satisfaction, FRE 408 posture, waiver scan, tone, factual accuracy. Do not proceed until each is engaged. 5. Template select: seed doc if provided in `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md`; else soft template for the demand type. 6. Draft in-chat for review. Iterate until user approves. 7. Write `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/demand-letters/[slug]/draft-v[N].docx` using the docx skill. 8. Write `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/demand-letters/[slug]/checklist.md` (post-send checklist). 9. Assess materiality per heuristic; offer to create a matter. If yes: hand off to `matter-intake` with pre-populated fields.

---

Demand Draft

Purpose

Take a completed intake and produce a sendable draft. Most of the value is in refusing to draft until privilege, waiver, admission, and settlement-communication posture have been consciously addressed — the failure mode is a letter that waives privilege or constitutes an admission because no one paused to check.

Record fidelity — quotes and pinpoints

Demand letters are advocacy, and every quoted line from a contract, an email, or a prior communication becomes an assertion the counterparty will test. Canonical statement in the plugin's `CLAUDE.md` shared guardrails; repeated here.

**Verbatim quotes must be verbatim.** Never put quotation marks around words attributed to the counterparty, their counsel, a witness, or any document unless you have the exact passage in front of you. When you want to characterize without the exact words:

• **Paraphrase without quotation marks**, with a placeholder: "Your [date] email stated X `[verify exact quote — email cite pending]`."
• **Never fill the gap.** A misquoted contract provision in a demand letter is the fastest way to lose credibility with opposing counsel on the first round.
• Every `[verify exact quote]` must be flagged in the reviewer note before the letter leaves.

**Pinpoint cites must support the whole proposition.** If the demand asserts "Section 4.2 requires payment within 30 days upon invoice receipt," the cited section must cover the obligation AND the trigger AND the window. If it only covers one, split the cite (e.g., "Section 4.2 (payment obligation); Section 4.3 (30-day window)") or narrow the proposition. A contract cite that backs part of the demand is how the counterparty replies with the full text and flips the posture.

Candor about weak arguments

When the law or the record is against a point, don't dress it up as solid. When an argument in the demand is weak — the contract language is ambiguous, the authority cuts the other way, the damages theory is a stretch — flag it for the sender:

> "The [claim / theory] here is weak because [authority / fact]. Options: (a) press it and frame as `[alternative framing]`, (b) drop it and rely on [stronger claim], (c) keep it as a hook but hedge the language. `[review — strategic call]`."

A demand letter that over-asserts gets a response that catalogs every overreach, shifts leverage, and burns the next round. The strongest demand letter is the one that concedes what's weak so the counterparty can't.

Echo vs repeat

If the matter has prior correspondence, echo the key terms — the same characterization of the breach, the same framing of the core obligation, the same name for the transaction. Don't lift whole sentences. A demand letter that reads like a copy-paste of the prior one signals that nothing has changed; the new letter should advance the posture (new facts, new deadline, new consequence), not restate it.

> **External deliverable:** the drafted demand letter is sent to counterparty. Do NOT include a `PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT — PREPARED AT THE DIRECTION OF COUNSEL` header on the outgoing letter. The post-send checklist and the intake file are internal work product and do carry the header.

Side context

Drafting a demand letter is inherently an assertion — the sender is making a claim. Read `## Side` in the practice profile:

• **Plaintiff / claimant** (default for this skill): demand-draft aligns with the posture. The letter is the claim. Tone, consequence language, and relief demanded all flow from the plaintiff-side playbook.
• **Defense / respondent**: demand-drafts are less common from defense but do happen — a defense practitioner may send a counter-demand, a demand for contribution, or a demand letter in an unrelated matter. Confirm before drafting: "You said defense is your default. Is this matter plaintiff-posture for you (you're asserting a claim), or is this a different posture?"
• **Both / varies**: ask per-draft which posture applies. The draft's tone and default signer may differ.

For in-house defense practitioners who receive demand letters more than they send them, route to `demand-received` instead — that skill handles the inbound-triage case.

Posture for this matter

Before the pre-draft gate, confirm the matter-level posture. Demand-letter tone and terms are case-by-case, not a practice default. Confirm with the user (reading the intake's `## Posture` sec