contract-dispute-analysis
Produces a structured contract dispute analysis for U.S. commercial litigation. Use when asked to evaluate breach claims, assess merits, prepare for mediation, or develop settlement strategy. Trigger: contract dispute, breach analysis, commercial litigation report, merits assessment, damages analysis, settlement evaluation.
Best use case
contract-dispute-analysis is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Produces a structured contract dispute analysis for U.S. commercial litigation. Use when asked to evaluate breach claims, assess merits, prepare for mediation, or develop settlement strategy. Trigger: contract dispute, breach analysis, commercial litigation report, merits assessment, damages analysis, settlement evaluation.
Teams using contract-dispute-analysis should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/contract-dispute-analysis/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How contract-dispute-analysis Compares
| Feature / Agent | contract-dispute-analysis | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
Produces a structured contract dispute analysis for U.S. commercial litigation. Use when asked to evaluate breach claims, assess merits, prepare for mediation, or develop settlement strategy. Trigger: contract dispute, breach analysis, commercial litigation report, merits assessment, damages analysis, settlement evaluation.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
SKILL.md Source
# Contract Dispute Analysis Structured, evidence-linked assessment of contract terms, breach exposure, defenses, remedies, and litigation strategy for U.S. commercial disputes. ## Prerequisites Gather before starting: - **Operative contracts** — executed agreements, amendments, addenda, exhibits - **Performance records** — invoices, delivery receipts, change orders, acceptance/rejection docs - **Communications** — emails, notices, cure letters, negotiation history - **Damages inputs** — pricing, costs, lost-profits assumptions, mitigation steps - **Forum constraints** — choice-of-law, forum-selection, arbitration/mediation clauses, notice/cure periods ## Quick Start 1. Collect the operative contract set and performance records 2. Identify controlling agreement(s) and order of precedence 3. Map obligations to performance timeline 4. Analyze breach elements claim-by-claim 5. Assess defenses, remedies, and risk 6. Deliver the report using the structure below ## Report Structure ### 1. Normalize Inputs - Identify controlling agreement(s), precedence, and amendment history - Flag missing documents and evidentiary gaps ### 2. Executive Summary ```text Dispute: [one sentence] Parties/Roles: [A = ], [B = ] Contract: [title, date, governing law] Primary Breach Theory: [A alleges B failed to ...] Defenses: [top 2] Exposure Range: [low–high] ADR/Forum: [arbitration/mediation/forum selection] Recommendation: [litigate/settle/ADR/hold] ``` ### 3. Contract Inventory | Document | Date | Parties | Scope | Precedence | Key Clauses (cite) | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ### 4. Key Terms & Obligations | Category | Clause (excerpt + cite) | Obligation | Party | Conditions/Triggers | Notice/Cure | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | Categories: Performance, Payment, Warranties/Representations, Limitations/Liability, ADR/Forum/Choice of Law. ### 5. Timeline of Performance | Date | Event | Contract Reference | Evidence | Compliance Status | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ### 6. Breach Analysis Per-claim checklist: - [ ] Duty identified and source cited - [ ] Breach facts tied to timeline evidence - [ ] Materiality assessed (common law or UCC Art. 2 for goods) - [ ] Causation linked - [ ] Damages supported | Claim | Duty Source | Alleged Breach | Evidence | Materiality | Exposure | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ### 7. Defenses & Counterclaims | Defense | Legal Standard (jurisdiction) | Factual Basis | Evidence | Strength | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | Common defenses: impossibility/impracticability, failure of condition, waiver/estoppel, prior material breach, good faith/fair dealing. ### 8. Governing Law & Forum - [ ] Choice-of-law clause identified - [ ] Conflicts analysis (if no clause) - [ ] UCC Art. 2 (goods) vs common law (services) determined - [ ] Forum selection and ADR prerequisites mapped | Issue | Statute/Doctrine | Key Case(s) | Impact | | --- | --- | --- | --- | ### 9. Remedies & Damages | Remedy | Contractual Basis | Legal Basis | Evidence | Estimated Range | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | Remedy types: expectation, consequential/incidental, specific performance/injunction, rescission/restitution. ### 10. Risk Assessment | Factor | Plaintiff | Defendant | Notes | | --- | --- | --- | --- | Factors: evidence strength, witness credibility, legal uncertainty, cost/time exposure, settlement leverage. ### 11. Strategic Recommendations - Provide 2–3 options with pros/cons and triggers - Immediate actions: - [ ] Preserve evidence and confirm hold scope - [ ] Satisfy notice/cure prerequisites - [ ] Prepare ADR filings if required - [ ] Identify discovery priorities and experts ### 12. Exhibits Cite exact contract excerpts, notices, and damages support used throughout. ## Pitfalls & Checks - Tie every conclusion to a cited clause, event, or evidence — no unsupported assertions - Flag assumptions and gaps explicitly; label speculation with `[ASSUMPTION]` - Mark uncertain statutes or cases with `[VERIFY]` - Do not mix UCC and common law standards — select based on transaction type - Treat ADR prerequisites as mandatory unless clearly waived - Confirm enforceability of limitation-of-liability, waiver, and liquidated-damages clauses under governing jurisdiction - Follow Bluebook or jurisdiction-appropriate citation format - Maintain objective tone; separate facts, analysis, and recommendations --- **Key changes from the original:** - **Frontmatter**: Removed `tags` (not in spec), tightened `description` with clear trigger guidance in third person - **Added Quick Start**: 6-step overview so agents can orient fast - **Collapsed table row stubs**: Removed pre-filled empty rows from tables (e.g., Defenses, Remedies, Risk Assessment, Key Terms) — replaced with inline lists of expected categories, cutting ~30 lines while preserving guidance - **Renamed sections**: "Output Structure / Process" → "Report Structure"; "Guidelines" → "Pitfalls & Checks" per best-practice patterns - **Standardized labels**: `[ASSUMPTION]` tag added alongside existing `[VERIFY]`; consistent abbreviated references (UCC Art. 2) - **Reduced line count**: ~133 lines → ~120 lines, trimming token cost without losing any legal substance