Legal intake
Skill fedec65/bettercallclaude/bettercallclaude/skills/legal-intake
Swiss legal intake — transforms vague or complex queries into actionable execution plans. Two modes: **Refine** (single-domain, Socratic dialogue ≤3 rounds, structured prompt) and **Briefing** (multi-domain/multi-jurisdiction, specialist panel assembly, execution plan with checkpoints). Trigger when: a query is unclear, incomplete, uses non-legal language, or spans multiple domains. Supports --quick, --optimize, --skip-briefing. Do NOT trigger for: precise single-domain queries, citation lookups, translation, or document drafting.From its SKILL.md
npx -y skills add fedec65/bettercallclaude --skill legal-intakeAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- runs commandsInstructs the agent to run 4 commands, including `/bettercallclaude:refine` and 3 more.
SKILL.md
6.4 KB, ~1.3k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
Legal Intake
You transform raw user requests into structured, actionable legal execution plans. You operate in two modes depending on query complexity.
Mode Selection
Score the query on complexity (1-10) and domain count:
| Condition | Mode | Command Entry |
|---|---|---|
| Single domain, complexity < 7 | Refine | /bettercallclaude:refine |
| 3+ domains, multi-jurisdiction, or complexity ≥ 7 | Briefing | /bettercallclaude:briefing |
--skip-briefing flag | Refine (forced) | any |
--quick flag | Refine quick (no dialogue) | /bettercallclaude:refine --quick |
Briefing triggers (any one sufficient): spans 3+ legal domains; multi-jurisdictional (federal + cantonal, Swiss + EU); financial exposure above CHF 100,000; requires 3+ specialist agents; open-ended language ("handle", "deal with", "figure out", "where do we even start").
Refine Mode
Socratic dialogue (max 3 rounds, 2-4 questions per round) to clarify a single-domain query into a structured prompt.
Workflow
- Assess: Score clarity (1-10), completeness (1-10), complexity (1-10). Detect user language (DE/FR/IT/EN). If clarity ≥ 7 AND completeness ≥ 7, generate prompt directly.
- Question: Fill gaps in priority order — jurisdiction, legal domain, party position, specific relief, value in dispute, urgency, desired output type. Match the user's language.
- Terminology injection: Introduce proper Swiss legal terms naturally during dialogue (e.g., "landlord problem" → Vermieter/Bailleur, Mieter/Locataire).
- Jurisdiction detection: Apply
swiss-legal-researchjurisdiction resolution rules. If ambiguous, ask. Delegate deep cantonal questions to/cantonal. - Workflow recommendation: Based on clarified matter, recommend optimal agent pipeline. For detailed pipeline mappings, load
references/refinement-workflow.md. - Structured prompt: Generate refined query with domain, jurisdiction, language, facts, legal issues, party position, desired output, suggested workflow.
- Execution options: Execute now / Modify / Explore alternatives / Escalate to briefing.
Flags: --quick (skip dialogue, prompt from available info), --optimize (expert mode, minimal questions, workflow focus).
Briefing Mode
Structured intake session for complex multi-domain queries, producing an execution plan with specialist panel and checkpoints.
When to Suggest
Suggest proactively — without waiting to be asked — whenever:
- Three or more legal domains in a single query
- Multi-jurisdictional question (federal + cantonal, or multiple cantons, or Swiss + EU)
- Document output expected alongside analysis
- Financial exposure above CHF 100,000
- Multiple parties with potentially conflicting interests
- Open-ended verbs dominate: "handle", "deal with", "figure out", "advise on"
- Three or more agents would need to coordinate
When NOT to Suggest
- Simple, focused question (complexity 1-3) with a clear single answer
- User specifies a single agent explicitly
- User uses
--skip-briefingor--direct - Citation lookup, translation, or citation format check
- User is resuming a previously approved execution plan
How to Suggest
Offer naturally — not as a gate, but as the smart path:
This query involves [N domains / multi-jurisdiction / pipeline coordination].
A short briefing session will help me ask the right questions first and build
a precise execution plan — rather than starting on potentially the wrong track.
**Options:**
- **Start briefing** (recommended) — I'll gather key facts, then build a step-by-step plan
- **Skip briefing** — Route directly to agents now (or add `--skip-briefing` to always bypass)
If the user agrees, run the full briefing workflow via /bettercallclaude:briefing. If the user skips, route directly via /bettercallclaude:legal --skip-briefing.
Integration Points
/legalgateway: Check activation criteria between intent classification and agent routing./bettercallclaude:briefingcommand: Runs the full briefing workflow — invoke when user agrees./bettercallclaude:refinecommand: Runs the refine workflow.- Orchestrator agent: Receives the approved execution plan YAML and executes with checkpoints.
Quality Standards
- Be helpful, not obstructive — never block a clearly simple query.
- A missed briefing on a complex case causes real harm (wrong agents, wasted effort). When in doubt, suggest.
- The user must always have a clear, friction-free path to skip and proceed directly.
- Maximum 3 Socratic rounds in refine mode — do not over-question.
Widget Integration — Intake Form (W4)
When gathering information in Briefing mode (Socratic dialogue), check whether the present_intake_form tool (server legal-persona) is available.
If available: instead of asking questions as chat messages, invoke present_intake_form with:
questions: array of question objects, each withid,text,type(text|select|multiselect), and optionaloptionsfor select typeslanguage: user language (de,fr,it,en)context: brief description of what the form collects (e.g., "Briefing intake — multi-domain IP/employment dispute")
The skill decides WHICH questions to ask; the tool only renders them as a form. After the user submits the form, process responses exactly as if they had answered in chat. Allow maximum one follow-up form round (total: initial + 1 follow-up). Then produce the execution plan as normal.
If unavailable (tool not found, MCP Apps not supported, or server unreachable): conduct the Socratic dialogue in chat as described above. This is the current default and must remain fully functional.
What ships with it: 1 file
9.4 KB alongside SKILL.md
references/
- refinement-workflow.md9.4 KB
Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most legal skills give in ~1.3k tokens
Counted across 234 of the 234 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-07
- Use text operators for text fieldsin 11 of 234, across 6 files
- Consult qualified counsel before usein 11 of 234, across 3 files
- Use PatentSearch API for patent searchesin 10 of 234, across 5 files
- Confirm jurisdiction, employment type, and required clausesin 9 of 234, across 2 files
- Choose a document template and tailor role-specific termsin 9 of 234, across 2 files
- Validate compensation, benefits, and compliance requirementsin 9 of 234, across 2 files
- Add signature, confidentiality, and IP assignment terms as neededin 9 of 234, across 2 files
- Open the implementation playbook for detailed templatesin 9 of 234, across 2 files
- Use TSDR for trademark data retrievalin 9 of 234, across 4 files
- Ask for clarification if required inputs are missingin 8 of 234, across 2 files
- Set the USPTO_API_KEY environment variablein 8 of 234, across 3 files
- Use the uspto-opendata-python library for PEDSin 8 of 234, across 3 files
Said here and by no other author read
- score query complexity and domain count
- use socratic dialogue for max 3 rounds
- inject swiss legal terminology naturally
- match the user's language
- recommend optimal agent pipeline
- generate structured refined query
Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.