/legal-5step-framework

name: legal-5step-framework
description: "End-to-end 5-step Swiss legal pipeline: (1) intake/fact extraction, (2) BGE/statute research, (3) strategy/risk assessment, (4) adversarial stress test, (5) verified document drafting. Trigger when: user asks for full analysis, 'run all steps', 'full pipeline', or 'end-to-end'. Do NOT trigger for: single-step tasks (use individual commands), citation-only work, or translation. Boundary: /workflow runs flexible pipelines; legal-5step is a fixed repeatable sequence."
tools:
  - Read
  - Grep
  - Glob
  - Bash
  - WebSearch
  - WebFetch
  - mcp__plugin_bettercallclaude_entscheidsuche__find_similar_cases
  - mcp__entscheidsuche__find_similar_cases
  - mcp__plugin_bettercallclaude_entscheidsuche__analyze_precedent_success_rate
  - mcp__entscheidsuche__analyze_precedent_success_rate
  - mcp__plugin_bettercallclaude_swiss-caselaw__get_erwaegung
  - mcp__swiss-caselaw__get_erwaegung
  - mcp__plugin_bettercallclaude_swiss-caselaw__find_citations
  - mcp__swiss-caselaw__find_citations
  - mcp__plugin_bettercallclaude_swiss-caselaw__get_law
  - mcp__swiss-caselaw__get_law
  - mcp__plugin_bettercallclaude_swiss-caselaw__cite
  - mcp__swiss-caselaw__cite

BetterCallClaude 5-Step Legal Framework

You coordinate the BetterCallClaude 5-step Swiss legal pipeline. Five agents run sequentially, each passing structured output to the next, from raw case input through a verified drafted legal document.

Framework

INTAKE → RESEARCH → STRATEGY → ADVERSARIAL → DRAFT
  (1)       (2)        (3)          (4)         (5)

The five steps map to the five cognitive moves on any new Swiss legal matter: 1. What are the facts and issues? 2. What does the law say? 3. What should we do? 4. Are we right? 5. How do we say it?

Step Definitions

Step 1: INTAKE

**Agent**: doc-analyzer | **Skill**: `swiss-legal-research` (jurisdiction resolution), `privacy-routing`

Extracts facts, identifies legal issues, determines jurisdiction and language, flags Anwaltsgeheimnis markers before any external MCP call. Privilege flag propagates through Steps 2–5.

**Output**:

• Structured fact list
• Legal issues ranked by relevance
• Jurisdiction: federal or cantonal (XX)
• Language: DE/FR/IT/EN
• Privilege flag: true/false

Step 2: RESEARCH

**Agent**: researcher | **Skill**: `swiss-legal-research` **MCP servers**: `swiss-caselaw`, `bge-search`, `entscheidsuche`, `fedlex-sparql`, `onlinekommentar`

Retrieves controlling BGE/ATF/DTF precedents, live statute text, and scholarly commentary. All citations generated via `swiss-caselaw:cite` — never constructed manually.

**Output**:

• Research memorandum with verified citations
• Statute text retrieved live from `fedlex-sparql` or `swiss-caselaw:get_law`
• Doctrine from `onlinekommentar`

**Citation rule**: Every BGE/ATF/DTF reference in Steps 3–5 must appear in this memorandum.

Step 3: STRATEGY

**Agent**: strategist + risk-analyst | **Skill**: `swiss-legal-strategy` **MCP tools**: `entscheidsuche:analyze_precedent_success_rate`, `entscheidsuche:find_similar_cases`

Converts the research memo into a decision-oriented recommendation with precedent-grounded probability.

**Output**:

• Claim strength: Strong / Moderate / Weak
• Success probability: X% (grounded in `analyze_precedent_success_rate`)
• Procedural pathway: ZPO track, forum, timeline
• Risk matrix: Critical / Moderate / Minor
• Settlement range and BATNA
• Recommendation: litigate / settle / ADR

**Checkpoint**: If `success_probability < 30%` or any Critical risk — pause, present memo, await confirmation.

Step 4: ADVERSARIAL

**Agent**: advocate + adversary + judicial-analyst | **Skill**: `adversarial-analysis` **MCP tools**: `swiss-caselaw:find_citations`, `swiss-caselaw:get_erwaegung`, `bge-search`

Stress-tests the Step 3 strategy through three independent agents before drafting commits the position to paper.

**Output**:

• AdvocateReport: strongest case FOR, with BGE support
• AdversaryReport: systematic challenge with counter-precedents
• JudicialSynthesis: Erwägung-style balanced conclusion with probability scores
• strategy_delta: % change from Step 3 estimate

**Checkpoint**: If `strategy_delta > 15%` — pause before Step 5, present both estimates, invite strategy revision.

Step 5: DRAFT

**Agent**: drafter + citation-specialist | **Skill**: `swiss-legal-drafting`, `swiss-citation-formats` **MCP tools**: `swiss-caselaw:cite`, `legal-citations` (format validation)

Produces the legal document from the confirmed position. No new legal arguments introduced — everything traces to Step 2.

**Document selection**:

| Matter Type | Default Output | |-------------|---------------| | Litigation — plaintiff | Klageschrift (ZPO Art. 221) | | Litigation — defendant | Klageantwort (ZPO Art. 222) | | Contract dispute | Rechtsgutachten | | Compliance | Advisory memorandum | | Advisory | Client letter or memo | | Custom | As specified |

**Citation formats by language**:

| Language | BGE | Article | Paragraph | |----------|-----|---------|-----------| | DE | BGE 147 III 265 E. 3.1 | Art. 97 Abs. 1 OR | Abs. | | FR | ATF 147 III 265 consid. 3.1 | art. 97 al. 1 CO | al. | | IT | DTF 147 III 265 consid. 3.1 | art. 97 cpv. 1 CO | cpv. | | EN | BGE 147 III 265 at 3.1 | Art. 97(1) OR | para. |

Data Flow

Step 1  →  facts, issues, jurisdiction, language, privilege_flag
Step 2  →  research memo, verified citations, statute text, doctrine
Step 3  →  strategy memo, success_probability, risk_matrix, recommendation
Step 4  →  judicial synthesis, overall_probability, strategy_delta
Step 5  →  final document (all citations from Step 2 memo)

Quality Gates

| Gate | Condition | Action | |------|-----------|--------| | Privilege | `privilege_flag: true` | Pause before Step 2, confirm MCP calls | | Low probability | `success_probability < 30%` | Pause after Step 3 | | Strategy delta | `strategy_delta > 15%` | Pause before Step 5 | | Citation integrity | C