Back to Details

demand-received

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

/demand-received

/demand-received

  1. Read the incoming document from provided path.
  2. Load 
    ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/_log.yaml
    for portfolio cross-check.
  3. Load 
    ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md
    → risk calibration, landscape, demand-letter practice.
  4. Follow the workflow and reference below.
  5. Extract fields; cross-check portfolio; assess merit; present options with recommendation.
  6. Write 
    ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/inbound/[slug]/triage.md
    . Copy or link incoming to 
    ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/inbound/[slug]/incoming.[ext]
    .
  7. Hand off per user choice:
    • Create matter → 
      matter-intake
      pre-populated
    • Respond with counter-demand → 
      demand-intake
      pre-populated
    • Link to existing matter → update 
      related_matters
      in log
    • Standalone → no further action
  1. 读取指定路径下的收到的文件。
  2. 加载
    ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/_log.yaml
    以交叉核对案件组合。
  3. 加载
    ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md
    → 用于风险校准、诉讼环境分析、需求函处理惯例参考。
  4. 遵循下方工作流程及参考内容。
  5. 提取字段；交叉核对案件组合；评估诉求合理性；提供带有建议的回应方案。
  6. 写入
    ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/inbound/[slug]/triage.md
    。将收到的文件复制或链接至
    ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/inbound/[slug]/incoming.[ext]
    。
  7. 根据用户选择移交处理：
    • 创建案件 → 预填充信息后移交至
      matter-intake
    • 回复反需求 → 预填充信息后移交至
      demand-intake
    • 关联至现有案件 → 更新日志中的
      related_matters
    • 单独处理 → 无需进一步操作

Demand Received

收到需求函

Purpose

目的

Inbound demand letters are the bread and butter of an in-house litigation practice. A small fraction need escalation; most can be handled with a structured response or a holding letter. The failure mode is treating them all alike. This skill triages, cross-checks the portfolio, and produces options.
收到的需求函是企业内部诉讼业务的核心工作内容之一。仅有小部分需求函需要升级处理，大多数可通过结构化回应或暂缓函处理。常见失误是对所有需求函一视同仁。本技能可对需求函进行分类处理、交叉核对案件组合，并提供应对方案。

Load context

加载上下文

  • The incoming document (user provides path or drops it in-session)
  • ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/_log.yaml
    — scan for related matters (same counterparty, overlapping counterparties via entity relationships, or matter type + recent date)
  • ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md
    → risk calibration (for merit assessment), landscape (is the sender a frequent adversary?), demand-letter practice (house tone and response defaults)
  • 收到的文件（用户提供路径或在会话中上传）
  • ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/_log.yaml
    — 扫描相关案件（相同对手方、通过实体关系关联的重叠对手方，或同类案件+近期日期）
  • ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md
    → 风险校准（用于诉求合理性评估）、诉讼环境分析（发函方是否为频繁对手？）、需求函处理惯例（内部回应语气及默认规则）

Workflow

工作流程

Step 1: Read the demand

步骤1：读取需求函

Extract from the incoming:
  • Sender — entity, signer, counsel (if signed by outside firm)
  • Recipient — which entity/person at our company
  • Delivery — certified, email, courier (matters for deadline calculation)
  • Date received vs. date signed
  • Demand type — payment, breach/cure, C&D, preservation, settlement, other
  • Specific asks — what they want, by when
  • Facts alleged — their version of what happened
  • Legal basis — statutes, contract provisions, theories they cite
  • Threats — what they say they'll do if we don't comply
  • Settlement-communication framing — research the settlement-communication protections applicable in the forum (FRE 408 in federal, the state equivalent otherwise). Note whether the demand is marked as a settlement communication, but remember: protection attaches from conduct and context, not merely from labeling. Capture both the label (if any) and a first-pass read of whether the substance is in fact a compromise discussion.
从收到的文件中提取以下信息：
  • 发函方 — 实体、签署人、法律顾问（若由外部律所签署）
  • 收函方 — 我方公司的哪个实体/个人
  • 交付方式 — 挂号信、邮件、快递（影响截止日期计算）
  • 收到日期 vs 签署日期
  • 需求类型 — 付款要求、违约整改、停止侵权（C&D）、证据保全、和解提议、其他
  • 具体诉求 — 他们的要求及截止日期
  • 主张事实 — 他们所述的事件经过
  • 法律依据 — 引用的法规、合同条款、法律理论
  • 威胁内容 — 若我方不配合，他们将采取的行动
  • 和解沟通框架 — 研究管辖地适用的和解沟通保护规则（联邦法院适用FRE 408，州法院适用对应州规则）。记录需求函是否标记为和解沟通，但需注意：保护效力取决于行为及上下文，而非仅标签。同时记录标签（如有）及初步判断内容是否属于和解协商范畴。

Step 2: Portfolio cross-check

步骤2：案件组合交叉核对

Search 
_log.yaml
for:
  • Direct match — matter with same counterparty (their slug matches the sender)
  • Type match — similar matter type with this counterparty in the past (closed matters count — they inform pattern)
  • Subject overlap — matters where the subject might be the same dispute (e.g., same contract, same product, same project)
Present findings:
  • If direct match + active: flag as almost certainly the same matter; recommend adding incoming to the existing matter, not opening a new one. Update 
    related_matters
    if it's a tangent.
  • If direct match + closed: flag — counterparty is back. May be a new dispute (open new matter) or a resurrected one (reopen or amend). User decides.
  • If type match: note as precedent/context; probably distinct matter but inform the response strategy.
  • If no match: novel. Treat as fresh.
在
_log.yaml
中搜索：
  • 直接匹配 — 对手方相同的案件（其slug与发函方匹配）
  • 类型匹配 — 过去与该对手方发生的同类案件（已结案案件也需纳入，可作为行为模式参考）
  • 主题重叠 — 可能涉及同一纠纷的案件（如同一合同、同一产品、同一项目）
呈现核查结果：
  • 若直接匹配+案件活跃：标记为几乎肯定是同一案件；建议将收到的需求函添加至现有案件，而非新建案件。若为关联事项，则更新
    related_matters
    。
  • 若直接匹配+案件已结案：标记为对手方再次发函。可能是新纠纷（新建案件）或旧案重启（重新开启或修改案件）。由用户决定。
  • 若类型匹配：记录为先例/背景信息；可能为独立案件，但可用于指导回应策略。
  • 若无匹配：属于新案件。按全新案件处理。

Step 3: Merit assessment

步骤3：诉求合理性评估

Not a legal opinion — a structured read:
  • Facts — do the alleged facts align with what we know? Where's the disconnect?
  • Legal basis — are the cited provisions/statutes actually applicable? (Flag cites for user verification — do not attempt to validate law autonomously.)
  • Strength on their side — if they went to court tomorrow, what's their story?
  • Strength on our side — what are our likely defenses?
  • Damages demanded vs. likely — is the ask proportionate to what a court would award if they won?
  • Leverage and pressure — are they credibly prepared to sue? Do they have capacity? Are they a repeat-litigant adversary per 
    ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md
    ?
Output a triage rating: substantial merit / debatable / weak / frivolous. Be blunt. The user is triaging, not writing the brief.
此评估并非法律意见，仅为结构化分析：
  • 事实层面 — 主张的事实与我方已知情况是否一致？存在哪些分歧？
  • 法律依据 — 引用的条款/法规是否实际适用？（标记需用户验证的引用内容 — 不得自主验证法律有效性。）
  • 对方优势 — 若他们立即起诉，其核心论点是什么？
  • 我方优势 — 我方可能的抗辩理由有哪些？
  • 索赔金额合理性 — 他们要求的赔偿金额与法院可能判决的金额是否相称？
  • 对方筹码与压力 — 他们是否真的准备起诉？是否有起诉能力？根据
    ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md
    ，他们是否为频繁诉讼的对手？
输出分类评级：诉求合理 / 存在争议 / 诉求薄弱 / 无意义诉求。表述需直接。用户仅需分类处理，无需撰写辩护状。

Step 4: Response options

步骤4：回应方案

Present 3-4 options with tradeoffs:
Option A — substantive response
  • When: their demand has merit or is at least debatable; a reasoned reply protects the record
  • Tradeoff: commits us to a position in writing
  • Next step: 
    /demand-intake
    with pre-populated fields for a counter-response letter
Option B — holding letter
  • When: need time to investigate; don't want to concede anything or trigger their deadline math
  • Tradeoff: doesn't resolve anything; buys 2-4 weeks
  • Next step: short acknowledgment draft
Option C — settlement response
  • When: early resolution is cheaper than litigation; willing to discuss without admitting
  • Tradeoff: settlement-communication posture required — research the applicable rule (FRE 408 or state equivalent) and structure the response so the substance, not just the label, qualifies as a compromise discussion. Must be careful not to waive claims.
  • Next step: 
    /demand-intake
    with 
    type: settlement-response
Option D — ignore + preserve
  • When: demand is frivolous or the deadline doesn't create legal prejudice
  • Tradeoff: silence can be used against us in some contexts (e.g., account stated); legal hold still required
  • Next step: issue legal hold via 
    /legal-hold --issue
    if not already; log the demand and move on
Recommend one. Be specific about why.
提供3-4种方案及利弊分析：
方案A — 实质性回应
  • 适用场景：对方诉求合理或至少存在争议；有理有据的回应可保护我方记录
  • 利弊：需以书面形式表明我方立场
  • 下一步：将预填充字段的信息移交至
    /demand-intake
    以起草反回应函
方案B — 暂缓函
  • 适用场景：需时间调查；不想做出任何让步或触发对方的截止日期计算
  • 利弊：无法解决问题；可争取2-4周时间
  • 下一步：起草简短确认函
方案C — 和解回应
  • 适用场景：早期和解比诉讼成本更低；愿意在不承认责任的前提下协商
  • 利弊：需采取和解沟通姿态 — 研究适用规则（FRE 408或对应州规则），确保回应内容（而非仅标签）符合和解协商范畴。需注意不得放弃我方诉求。
  • 下一步：将
    type: settlement-response
    的信息移交至
    /demand-intake
方案D — 忽略+保全
  • 适用场景：诉求无意义或截止日期不会造成法律损害
  • 利弊：在某些情况下，沉默可能对我方不利（如默认账户情况）；仍需启动法律保全
  • 下一步：若尚未启动，通过
    /legal-hold --issue
    发起法律保全；记录需求函后继续推进其他工作
推荐一种方案，并明确说明理由。

Step 5: Deadline triage

步骤5：截止日期分类处理

  • Their stated deadline — note it, but it doesn't bind us
  • Our internal deadline — when we must decide (often: stated deadline minus 5 business days to draft + approve)
  • Legal deadlines — statute of limitations, contractual cure periods, procedural requirements
Flag any legal deadlines that are tight. Calendar them.
No silent supplement. If the inbound demand cites rules, cases, or statutes that require verification, and a research query to the configured legal research tool (Westlaw, CourtListener, Trellis, Descrybe, or firm platform) returns few or no results for a given authority, report what was found and stop. Do NOT fill the gap from web search or model knowledge without asking. Say: "The search returned [N] results from [tool]. Coverage appears thin for [cite / doctrine]. Options: (1) broaden the search query, (2) try a different research tool, (3) search the web — results will be tagged 
[web search — verify]
and should be checked against a primary source before relying, or (4) leave the 
[SME VERIFY]
flag and stop here. Which would you like?" A lawyer decides whether to accept lower-confidence sources; the skill does not decide for them.
Source attribution. Tag every citation carried into the triage — including the sender's cited authorities, our response-option rationales, and any research pulled for merit assessment — with where it came from: 
[Westlaw]
, 
[CourtListener]
, 
[Trellis]
, 
[Descrybe]
, or the MCP tool name for citations retrieved from a legal research connector; 
[web search — verify]
for web-search citations; 
[model knowledge — verify]
for citations recalled from training data; 
[user provided]
for citations supplied in the demand itself. Citations tagged 
verify
carry higher fabrication risk and should be checked first. Never strip or collapse the tags.
  • 对方指定的截止日期 — 记录该日期，但该日期对我方无约束力
  • 我方内部决策截止日期 — 我方必须做出决定的日期（通常为：对方指定日期减去5个工作日用于起草+审批）
  • 法定截止日期 — 诉讼时效、合同整改期、程序要求
标记任何紧迫的法定截止日期，并添加至日历。
不得自行补充信息。若收到的需求函引用的规则、案例或法规需要验证，且配置的法律研究工具（Westlaw、CourtListener、Trellis、Descrybe或律所平台）对某一权威来源的搜索结果极少或无结果，需报告搜索结果并停止操作。不得在未询问用户的情况下通过网络搜索或模型知识填补空白。需告知用户：“从[工具]搜索到[N]条结果。[引用内容/法律原则]的覆盖范围较窄。可选方案：(1) 扩大搜索范围，(2) 尝试其他研究工具，(3) 进行网络搜索 — 结果将标记为
[web search — verify]
，在依赖前需与原始来源核对，或(4) 保留
[SME VERIFY]
标记并停止操作。请问您希望如何处理？” 由律师决定是否接受低可信度来源；本技能不得自行决定。
来源标注。对分类处理中引用的所有内容进行标注 — 包括发函方引用的权威来源、我方回应方案的依据、以及诉求合理性评估中引用的任何研究内容 — 标注来源：从法律研究连接器获取的引用标注为
[Westlaw]
、
[CourtListener]
、
[Trellis]
、
[Descrybe]
或MCP工具名称；网络搜索的引用标注为
[web search — verify]
；模型训练数据中提取的引用标注为
[model knowledge — verify]
；需求函中提供的引用标注为
[user provided]
。标记为
verify
的引用存在较高的伪造风险，需优先核对。不得删除或合并标注。

Step 6: Write triage

步骤6：撰写分类处理报告

Output: 
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/inbound/[slug]/triage.md
.
markdown
[WORK-PRODUCT HEADER — per plugin config ## Outputs — differs by role; see `## Who's using this`]

> **Privilege inheritance.** This triage is derived from the inbound demand and from the portfolio log, and it records our first-pass merit read and response posture. Those internal analyses are attorney-client and/or work-product material. Distributing this triage beyond the privilege circle — including forwarding it to the business lead without marking, sharing with the counterparty, or attaching to an insurance tender without scrubbing — can waive protection over both this document and the reasoning inside it. Store with privileged matter material, mark consistently with house privilege conventions, and make distribution decisions deliberately.
输出至：
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/inbound/[slug]/triage.md
。
markdown
[工作产品页眉 — 按插件配置## Outputs — 因角色而异；详见`## Who's using this`]

> **保密继承**。本分类处理报告基于收到的需求函及案件组合日志，记录了我方初步的诉求合理性分析及回应立场。这些内部分析属于律师-客户保密信息和/或工作成果材料。若将本报告分发至保密范围外 — 包括未标记便转发给业务负责人、分享给对手方、或未经清理便附于保险索赔文件中 — 可能导致本文件及其中的分析内容失去保密保护。需与保密案件材料一同存储，严格遵循内部保密标记规范，并谨慎决定分发范围。

Demand Received — Triage

收到需求函 — 分类处理报告

READ FOR TRIAGE, NOT OPINION. This document is an intake scan and an options analysis — not a legal merit opinion. The 
Triage rating
below is a structured read to support the counsel's decision on how to route the demand. It is not a recommendation on the merits and does not substitute for case-specific legal analysis. Every cited statute, rule, or case is flagged for SME verification; every merit call is the counsel's, not this skill's.
Slug: [slug] Received: [YYYY-MM-DD] Received by: [entity / person] Incoming file: [path]
仅用于分类处理，非法律意见。本文件为受理扫描及方案分析 — 并非法律合理性意见。下方的
分类评级
为结构化分析，用于支持律师决定需求函的处理路径。本评级并非对诉求合理性的建议，不能替代针对具体案件的法律分析。所有引用的法规、规则或案例均标记为需专家验证；所有合理性判断均由律师做出，而非本技能。
Slug: [slug] 收到日期: [YYYY-MM-DD] 收函人: [实体/个人] 收到文件路径: [path]

The demand

需求函信息

Sender: [entity, signer, counsel] Demand type: [type] Specific asks: [list] Their stated deadline: [date] Settlement-communication framing: [labeled / substantively / neither / ambiguous] — protection turns on conduct and context, not the label; 
[SME VERIFY]
against the forum's applicable rule
发函方: [实体、签署人、法律顾问] 需求类型: [类型] 具体诉求: [列表] 对方指定截止日期: [日期] 和解沟通框架: [已标记/实质为和解/均不符合/模糊] — 保护效力取决于行为及上下文，而非仅标签；需
[SME VERIFY]
管辖地适用规则

Facts alleged

主张事实

[their version, in one paragraph]
[对方陈述的事件经过，一段内容]

Legal basis cited

引用的法律依据

[citations — each inline-flagged with 
[SME VERIFY: applicability / currency / jurisdiction]
— do not rely on any citation here without independent check]
[引用内容 — 每条内容均内嵌标记
[SME VERIFY: 适用性/时效性/管辖地]
— 未经独立核对不得依赖此处的任何引用]

Threats / next steps they state

威胁内容 / 对方提及的下一步行动

[list]
[列表]

Portfolio cross-check

案件组合交叉核对

Direct match: [slug if exists, or "none"] Type match / precedent: [list or "none"] Subject overlap: [list or "none"] Recommendation: [new matter / add to existing / link via related_matters / standalone inbound]
直接匹配: [若存在则为slug，否则为“无”] 类型匹配 / 先例: [列表或“无”] 主题重叠: [列表或“无”] 建议: [新建案件/添加至现有案件/关联至相关案件/单独处理]

Merit assessment

诉求合理性评估

Facts: [alignment with our version; disconnects] Legal basis: [applicability, with flags] Their case if litigated: [one paragraph] Our defenses: [one paragraph] Damages proportionality: [assessment] Credibility of threat: [will they sue? capacity? repeat litigant?]
Triage rating: [substantial / debatable / weak / frivolous] — structured read for routing, not a merit opinion; 
[SME VERIFY: counsel to confirm before relying on this]
事实层面: [与我方陈述的一致性；分歧点] 法律依据: [适用性，含标记] 对方起诉的核心论点: [一段内容] 我方抗辩理由: [一段内容] 索赔金额合理性: [评估内容] 威胁可信度: [是否真的会起诉？是否有能力？是否为频繁诉讼的对手？]
分类评级: [合理/存在争议/薄弱/无意义] — 用于处理路径选择的结构化分析，非合理性意见；需
[SME VERIFY: 律师需确认后方可依赖]

Response options

回应方案

A. Substantive response

A. 实质性回应

[Rationale, tradeoffs, next step]
[理由、利弊、下一步]

B. Holding letter

B. 暂缓函

[Rationale, tradeoffs, next step]
[理由、利弊、下一步]

C. Settlement response

C. 和解回应

[Rationale, tradeoffs, next step]
[理由、利弊、下一步]

D. Ignore + preserve

D. 忽略+保全

[Rationale, tradeoffs, next step]
Recommendation: [A/B/C/D] — [two sentences why] — 
[SME VERIFY: counsel to confirm before executing]
[理由、利弊、下一步]
推荐方案: [A/B/C/D] — [两句理由] — 
[SME VERIFY: 律师需确认后方可执行]

Deadlines

截止日期

  • Their stated deadline: [date]
  • Our internal decision deadline: [date]
  • Legal deadlines: [SoL, cure periods, procedural — with dates]
  • 对方指定截止日期: [日期]
  • 我方内部决策截止日期: [日期]
  • 法定截止日期: [诉讼时效、整改期、程序要求 — 含日期]

Immediate actions

立即行动项

  • Legal hold issued — [yes/no] — if no, run 
    /legal-hold [slug] --issue
  • Matter created in log — [yes/no/TBD]
  • Counsel assigned — [who]
  • Insurance tendered — [yes/no/N-A]
  • Internal escalation (GC/CFO/business lead) — [who/when]
undefined
  • 已发起法律保全 — [是/否] — 若否，执行
    /legal-hold [slug] --issue
  • 已在日志中创建案件 — [是/否/待确认]
  • 已指派律师 — [姓名]
  • 已提交保险索赔 — [是/否/不适用]
  • 已内部升级（总法律顾问/首席财务官/业务负责人） — [对象/时间]
undefined

Step 7: Hand off

步骤7：移交处理

Based on recommendation and user confirmation:
  • Matter creation → hand off to 
    /matter-intake
    with: counterparty, type, 
    source: demand-letter
    (inbound), initial theory framed defensively, pre-populated.
  • Counter-response as outbound demand → hand off to 
    /demand-intake
    with: counterparty, context from triage, desired outcome as the response.
  • Link to existing matter → update that matter's 
    related_matters
    in 
    _log.yaml
    ; append event to its 
    history.md
    .
  • Standalone → leave in 
    ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/inbound/
    ; no portfolio change.
根据推荐方案及用户确认：
  • 创建案件 → 移交至
    /matter-intake
    ，包含：对手方、案件类型、
    source: demand-letter
    （收到的需求函）、初步抗辩理论，预填充信息。
  • 回复反需求 → 移交至
    /demand-intake
    ，包含：对手方、分类处理的上下文信息、期望的回应结果。
  • 关联至现有案件 → 更新该案件在
    _log.yaml
    中的
    related_matters
    ；在其
    history.md
    中添加事件记录。
  • 单独处理 → 保留在
    ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/inbound/
    ；无需修改案件组合。

Close with the next-steps decision tree

以下一步决策树收尾

End with the next-steps decision tree per CLAUDE.md 
## Outputs
. Customize the options to what this skill just produced — the five default branches (draft the X, escalate, get more facts, watch and wait, something else) are a starting point, not a lock-in. The tree is the output; the lawyer picks.
根据CLAUDE.md中的
## Outputs
，以下一步决策树收尾。根据本技能生成的内容自定义选项 — 五个默认分支（起草X、升级处理、获取更多事实、观望等待、其他）为起点，而非固定选项。决策树为输出内容，由律师选择。

What this skill does not do

本技能不执行的操作

  • Validate cited law. Flags cites for the user to run through a citator (verify it is good law) or check with outside counsel. Inventing legal analysis on inbound demands is malpractice exposure.
  • Send a response. Drafts are drafted in 
    demand-draft
    ; this skill stops at the triage decision.
  • Decide merit definitively. The rating is a read for triage; a formal merit opinion lives with outside counsel or more thorough analysis.
  • Make the matter-creation call. Surfaces the recommendation; user decides.
  • 验证引用的法律有效性。标记引用内容供用户通过法律检索工具验证（确认其为有效法律）或咨询外部律师。对收到的需求函自行进行法律分析可能构成执业过失。
  • 发送回应。回应函需在
    demand-draft
    中起草；本技能仅完成分类处理决策。
  • 明确判断诉求合理性。分类评级仅为分类处理的参考；正式的合理性意见需由外部律师或更深入的分析得出。
  • 决定是否创建案件。仅提供建议；由用户决定。