interview-summary
Generates structured summaries of witness or subject interviews for criminal defense investigations. Distills key facts, verbatim statements, credibility indicators, and follow-up leads. Use when summarizing defense interviews, witness debriefs, subject interrogations, or investigative interview notes.
Best use case
interview-summary is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Generates structured summaries of witness or subject interviews for criminal defense investigations. Distills key facts, verbatim statements, credibility indicators, and follow-up leads. Use when summarizing defense interviews, witness debriefs, subject interrogations, or investigative interview notes.
Teams using interview-summary 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/interview-summary/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How interview-summary Compares
| Feature / Agent | interview-summary | 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?
Generates structured summaries of witness or subject interviews for criminal defense investigations. Distills key facts, verbatim statements, credibility indicators, and follow-up leads. Use when summarizing defense interviews, witness debriefs, subject interrogations, or investigative interview notes.
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
# Interview Summary Produces a structured memorandum distilling a witness or subject interview into actionable intelligence for defense teams and investigators. ## Prerequisites 1. **Interview materials** — transcript, audio transcription, investigator notes, or preliminary report 2. **Matter reference** — case name/number and investigation context 3. **Related evidence** — prior witness statements, documents shown during interview, or known inconsistencies ## Quick Start Collect interview materials, then generate each section below in order. Mark the document `ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT — PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL`. ## Output Sections ### 1. Header Block | Field | Content | |-------|---------| | Date/Time | Interview date, start/end time | | Location | Interview site | | Interviewee | Name, role, relationship to matter | | Interviewer(s) | Names, titles | | Counsel Present | Defense counsel, interviewee's counsel if any | | Observers | Anyone else present | | Matter Reference | Case name/number | | Privilege Marking | `ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT — PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL` | ### 2. Executive Summary 3–5 sentences covering: - Most significant factual revelations - Key admissions or denials - Overall credibility assessment - Impact on defense theory ### 3. Substantive Summary Organize **thematically, not chronologically**: - **Background & Relationship** — connection to events, relevant history - **Key Events** — who, what, when, where, why, how per incident - **Knowledge of Other Parties** — interactions with co-defendants, witnesses, complainants - **Documents & Communications** — documents shown, recognized, referenced; reactions to exhibits Per theme: - [ ] Lead with concise factual summary - [ ] Embed verbatim quotes for significant statements (quotation marks + context) - [ ] Note gaps where interviewee lacked knowledge or memory ### 4. Credibility & Demeanor | Indicator | Observation | |-----------|-------------| | Consistency | Internal contradictions within interview | | External conflicts | Contradictions with other evidence or witnesses | | Demeanor | Evasiveness, reluctance, confidence on specific topics | | Motive/Bias | Relationship factors affecting reliability | | Corroboration | Statements supported by independent evidence | ### 5. Exculpatory / Inculpatory Assessment | Category | Statement/Fact | Significance | |----------|---------------|--------------| | Exculpatory | ... | ... | | Inculpatory | ... | ... | | Ambiguous | ... | ... | ### 6. Follow-Up & Recommendations - [ ] Additional witnesses identified (name, contact, expected knowledge) - [ ] Documents to obtain - [ ] Topics requiring re-interview or clarification - [ ] Investigative leads generated - [ ] Areas needing corroboration ## Pitfalls & Checks - **Objectivity** — Distinguish interviewee statements, interviewer observations, and analytical assessments. Label each. - **Discoverability** — Assume the summary may be disclosed. No speculation, no strategy, no mental impressions beyond factual observations. - **Privilege** — Mark header with work-product designation. Do not embed legal strategy. - **Precision** — Use exact names, dates, amounts. Flag approximations with `[approx.]`. - **Verbatim quotes** — Use for admissions, denials, key characterizations, and potential impeachment material. Include surrounding context. - **Neutral tone** — Factual language only. Label legal conclusions as analysis. ---