verdict-form

Drafts civil trial verdict forms with sequentially numbered jury questions covering liability, affirmative defenses, damages, comparative fault, and special interrogatories. Enforces plain-language phrasing, logical conditional flow, and jurisdiction-appropriate formatting. Use when preparing verdict forms, special verdict forms, jury interrogatories, or general verdict forms with interrogatories.

11 stars

Best use case

verdict-form is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.

Drafts civil trial verdict forms with sequentially numbered jury questions covering liability, affirmative defenses, damages, comparative fault, and special interrogatories. Enforces plain-language phrasing, logical conditional flow, and jurisdiction-appropriate formatting. Use when preparing verdict forms, special verdict forms, jury interrogatories, or general verdict forms with interrogatories.

Teams using verdict-form 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

$curl -o ~/.claude/skills/verdict-form/SKILL.md --create-dirs "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/CaseMark/skills/main/skills/legal/verdict-form/SKILL.md"

Manual Installation

  1. Download SKILL.md from GitHub
  2. Place it in .claude/skills/verdict-form/SKILL.md inside your project
  3. Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill

How verdict-form Compares

Feature / Agentverdict-formStandard Approach
Platform SupportNot specifiedLimited / Varies
Context Awareness High Baseline
Installation ComplexityUnknownN/A

Frequently Asked Questions

What does this skill do?

Drafts civil trial verdict forms with sequentially numbered jury questions covering liability, affirmative defenses, damages, comparative fault, and special interrogatories. Enforces plain-language phrasing, logical conditional flow, and jurisdiction-appropriate formatting. Use when preparing verdict forms, special verdict forms, jury interrogatories, or general verdict forms with interrogatories.

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

# Verdict Form

Drafts a trial-ready verdict form guiding jury deliberations through structured questions on liability, defenses, and damages for each cause of action.

## Prerequisites

Gather before drafting:

- **Operative pleading** — all causes of action and elements
- **Answer / affirmative defenses** — complete defense list including comparative fault
- **Jury instructions** — draft or final, for terminology alignment
- **Damages evidence summary** — categories supported by evidence
- **Local rules** — jurisdiction-specific form requirements (signatures, special verdict mandates)

## Quick Start

1. Mirror the caption from operative pleadings exactly
2. Add introductory jury statement
3. Draft sequentially numbered liability questions per cause of action
4. Insert conditional affirmative defense questions
5. Add damages questions conditioned on liability findings
6. Include comparative fault allocation if at issue
7. Add any court-required special interrogatories
8. Close with jurisdiction-appropriate signature block

## Core Sections

### Caption

Copy verbatim from operative pleadings. Include court name, division, parties, case number, and title "VERDICT FORM."

### Introductory Statement

Standard language: "We, the jury, duly empaneled and sworn in the above-entitled action, hereby return the following verdict:"

### Liability Questions

One sequentially numbered question per cause of action:

- **Plain language** — "breached the contract," not "material breach of the subject agreement"
- **State burden** — "proven by a preponderance of the evidence"
- **Answer format** — Yes ___ / No ___ with adequate white space
- **Order** — foundational claims first, then dependent claims

### Affirmative Defense Questions

For each complete-bar defense, insert a conditional question:

- Gate on the relevant liability "Yes" answer
- Ask whether defendant proved the defense applies
- If "Yes," direct jury to skip to Signature
- If "No," direct to next question

### Damages

Condition all damages questions on liability "Yes" + defense "No" findings. Otherwise direct jury to skip to Signature.

Draft separate dollar-amount lines per category:

| Category | Include When |
|----------|-------------|
| Compensatory (general) | Always if liability found |
| Compensatory (special) | Lost profits, medical expenses, property damage — itemize separately |
| Consequential | Pled and supported by evidence |
| Punitive | Only after predicate finding (malice/fraud/oppression per applicable state law) |

For punitive damages, require a separate predicate question before the amount question.

### Comparative Fault

If at issue, add percentage allocation question requiring all parties to total 100%.

### Special Interrogatories

Numbered questions for court-required factual findings: good faith, notice compliance, conditions precedent, timeliness / statute of limitations.

### Signature Block

Standard closing: "We, the jury, certify that this is our verdict." Include date line, foreperson signature and printed name. Check local rules — some jurisdictions require all jurors to sign.

## Pitfalls and Checks

- **Sequential numbering** — number continuously across all sections; never restart per section
- **Terminology alignment** — every question must mirror jury instruction language exactly
- **Explicit skip instructions** — every conditional must state where to go ("If No, skip to Question [N]")
- **Completeness** — cover every claim + every complete-bar defense so the court can enter judgment from answers alone
- **No contradictions** — structure conditionals to prevent logically inconsistent answers
- **Jurisdiction adaptation** — verify local requirements for punitive damages predicates, signature rules, and form mandates

Related Skills

performing-quality-assurance-reviews

11
from CaseMark/skills

Structures radiology peer review and quality assurance with discrepancy classification. Use when conducting peer review, classifying discrepancies, or documenting QA findings.

performing-image-guided-procedures

11
from CaseMark/skills

Documents image-guided biopsy, drainage, and injection procedures with technique and specimens. Use when performing IR procedures, documenting image-guided interventions, or recording procedural details.

performing-frozen-section-analysis

11
from CaseMark/skills

Guides intraoperative frozen section evaluation with rapid diagnostic protocols and communication. Use when performing frozen sections, providing intraoperative diagnoses, or communicating preliminary results.

performing-emergency-procedures

11
from CaseMark/skills

Documents procedural indications, consent, technique, and complications for ED procedures. Use when performing emergency procedures, documenting procedural notes, or recording bedside procedures.

performing-autopsy-protocols

11
from CaseMark/skills

Structures autopsy examination with organ system review, cause-of-death determination, and documentation. Use when performing autopsies, documenting autopsy findings, or determining cause of death.

managing-informed-consent-research

11
from CaseMark/skills

Structures research consent documentation with required elements and vulnerable population protections. Use when creating research consents, managing consent processes, or documenting informed consent.

managing-informed-consent-compliance

11
from CaseMark/skills

Evaluates informed consent practices against state law requirements and institutional policies. Use when auditing consent processes, reviewing consent form adequacy, or managing consent compliance.

managing-clinical-imaging-informatics

11
from CaseMark/skills

Structures radiology informatics workflows with PACS integration and DICOM standards. Use when managing imaging informatics, integrating PACS systems, or implementing DICOM workflows.

documenting-informed-consent

11
from CaseMark/skills

Structures informed consent documentation with risks, benefits, alternatives, and patient understanding confirmation. Use when obtaining informed consent, documenting consent discussions, or verifying consent completeness.

calculating-performance-status

11
from CaseMark/skills

Documents ECOG and Karnofsky performance status with treatment eligibility implications. Use when assessing performance status, documenting ECOG scores, or evaluating treatment candidacy.

verdict-judgment-summary

11
from CaseMark/skills

Produces structured post-trial verdict and judgment analysis memoranda for commercial litigation. Triggers when summarizing a jury verdict, bench trial decision, post-trial motion assessment, or appellate viability review. Covers liability determinations, damages breakdowns, critical rulings, and post-trial strategy.

tri-form-r

11
from CaseMark/skills

Drafts EPA Toxic Release Inventory (Form R) reports under EPCRA Section 313 and 40 CFR Part 372. Covers facility identification, chemical threshold determinations, release quantification, off-site transfers, source reduction, and certification. Use when preparing TRI filings, Form R reports, toxic chemical release disclosures, or annual EPCRA Section 313 submissions.