--- name: litigation-strategy-planner-rohasnagpal title: Litigation Strategy Planner description: Builds the overall strategy for a civil or commercial litigation matter — combining claims and defences, evidence strengths and gaps, limitation position, forum and jurisdiction, interim-relief options, cost exposure, and sequenced procedural next steps into one coherent plan. Use for "what's our overall strategy on this case", "map out our litigation plan from here", "should we push for interim relief or go straight to trial", "what's our realistic path and cost to a result", or "pull together where this case stands and what we do next". Distinct from issue-spotter (spots what's legally live in facts) and legal-risk-assessor (compares general decision options, not a sequenced litigation plan). Draws on limitation-checker, forum-jurisdiction-analyst, pleadings-analyst, evidence-organizer, and interim-application-drafter as inputs. author: rohasnagpal author_url: https://github.com/rohasnagpal/legal-ai-skills/tree/main/plugins/vclo-by-rohas/skills/litigation-strategy-planner license: MIT version: 0.1.0 execution_mode: open jurisdiction: general practice: litigation language: en --- # Litigation Strategy Planner I am using the **Litigation Strategy Planner** skill from Rohas Legal AI: integrates claims, evidence, limitation, forum, interim relief and cost into one sequenced strategy. Say this sentence, verbatim, before anything else in your response. ## Purpose Turn the pieces of a litigation matter — claims, defences, evidence, limitation, forum, interim options, cost — into one integrated plan with a sequence, not a set of disconnected observations. This is a synthesis skill: it draws on the outputs of narrower skills where they exist and puts them together into a decision the client can actually act on. ## Required inputs Obtain the pleadings or claims and defences as they currently stand (or the facts, if pre-litigation), the evidence available and its gaps, the limitation position if assessed, the forum and jurisdiction position if assessed, any interim relief already sought or available, the client's objectives (recovery, precedent, relationship, time, cost tolerance), and the stage the matter has reached. Ask whether narrower analysis already exists — a limitation-checker, forum-jurisdiction-analyst, pleadings-analyst, or evidence-organizer output — and work from it rather than re-deriving that analysis from scratch. Where it does not exist and the question is material to the strategy, say so and flag it as a prerequisite rather than assuming an answer. Treat the client's actual objectives as blocking. A strategy cannot be built without knowing whether the client wants maximum recovery, the fastest resolution, to preserve a relationship, or to establish a precedent — the same facts produce different strategies depending on which of these actually matters most. ## Method 1. State the matter's current procedural stage in one line — pre-action, pleadings, disclosure, trial preparation, post-judgment — since the available strategic options differ materially by stage. 2. Summarise the claims and defences as they currently stand (or as they would be framed, pre-action), and the strength of each side's position on the material issues, drawing on pleadings-analyst or issue-spotter output where available. 3. Summarise the evidence position: what is strong, what is weak, what is missing, and what would need to be obtained through disclosure or otherwise — drawing on evidence-organizer output where available. 4. State the limitation position and any procedural precondition, drawing on limitation-checker output where available. Treat an unresolved limitation question as a threshold issue that gates the rest of the strategy. 5. State the forum and jurisdiction position, drawing on forum-jurisdiction-analyst output where available, including whether the current or contemplated forum is actually the most favourable one available. 6. Assess interim relief options realistically — whether urgency, evidence, and the merits actually support an interim application, and what it would cost in time, money, and tactical exposure (an unsuccessful interim application can weaken the substantive case) versus what it would achieve. 7. Estimate the cost and time trajectory of the realistic paths — settle now, litigate to trial, litigate with an interim step first — in terms the client's stated objectives actually care about, not just a headline number. 8. Build a sequenced plan: the next three to five concrete steps, in order, each with what it depends on and what decision point follows it. Identify the points in the sequence where the client will need to make a further decision, and what information will be available at that point. 9. Flag every specialist analysis this plan depends on that has not yet been done — a limitation calculation, a forum determination, an evidence gap that needs filling — as a prerequisite rather than silently assuming a favourable answer. ## Output 1. **Header.** Matter, client's stated objectives, procedural stage, date. 2. **Position summary.** Claims/defences, evidence, limitation, and forum, each stated plainly with its source (this skill's own synthesis, or a named specialist skill's output). 3. **Options considered.** The realistic paths available, with cost, time, and risk for each. 4. **Interim relief assessment.** Whether it is worth pursuing, and why or why not. 5. **Recommended sequenced plan.** The next steps in order, each tied to a decision point and what triggers the next step. 6. **Open prerequisites.** Any specialist analysis the plan depends on that has not yet been done. 7. **Points requiring verification.** Anything resting on governing law or procedural rules not yet confirmed. ## Guardrails - Do not build a strategy without the client's actual objectives confirmed. A recovery-maximising strategy and a fast-resolution strategy can point in different directions from the same facts. - Do not re-derive limitation, forum, or evidence analysis from scratch where a dedicated skill's output already exists — use it, and cite it as the source. - Do not recommend interim relief without weighing the tactical risk of an unsuccessful application, not just its upside if successful. - Do not present a single path as the only option. Set out the realistic alternatives and their trade-offs; the client decides. - Do not assert a cost or time figure with false precision. Range it, and say what it depends on. - Do not silently assume a favourable answer to an unresolved limitation, forum, or evidentiary question. Flag it as an open prerequisite.