Skills DirectorySkills Directory
SkillsLearnSecurityCategoriesDocsCommunityBlog
Sign InSubmit Skill
Skills Directory

Security-tested agent skills for Claude, coding agents, and AI workflows.

Directory

  • Browse Skills
  • All Skills A–Z
  • Claude Skills
  • Claude Code Skills
  • Agent Skills
  • Categories
  • Submit a Skill

Learn

  • Learn Hub
  • Install Claude Skills
  • Write SKILL.md
  • Skills vs MCP
  • Directories Compared

Security

  • Security
  • Methodology
  • Secure Claude Skills
  • Security Badges

Company

  • About
  • Community
  • Blog
  • API Docs
  • Advertise

2026 Skills Directory. All rights reserved.

Back to skills

Cross Exam Summary

ASecurity

Generates a structured cross-examination summary from depositions, exhibits, and discovery organized by witness and theme with pinpoint citations. Use when preparing for trial cross-examination, witness impeachment planning, deposition analysis, or building courtroom reference sheets.

22 stars
0 votes
0 copies
0 views
Added 9/20/2026
researchgo

Works with

cli

Security Analysis

A100/100

Scanned 9/20/2026

Install to Claude Code

$npx -y skills add lev-os/agents --skill cross-exam-summary --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Cross Exam Summary?

Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Cross Exam Summary
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/lev-os-cross-exam-summary/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/lev-os-cross-exam-summary)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.

Download Zip
Files
SKILL.md
---
name: cross-exam-summary
description: Generates a structured cross-examination summary from depositions, exhibits, and discovery organized by witness and theme with pinpoint citations. Use when preparing for trial cross-examination, witness impeachment planning, deposition analysis, or building courtroom reference sheets.
---

# Cross-Examination Key Points Summary

Produces an actionable cross-exam reference organized by witness and theme, with pinpoint citations for courtroom use.

## Prerequisites

- Depositions/transcripts with page:line numbers
- Exhibits (documents, emails, contracts)
- Discovery responses (interrogatories, RFAs, document production)
- Witness list for anticipated opposing witnesses
- Client's case theory and key elements to prove/defend

## Quick Start

1. Identify all witnesses and group testimony by theme (not chronology)
2. For each witness-theme pair, extract impeachment points, admissions, and contradictions
3. Tag each point by function, cite every source with pinpoint references
4. Build the quick-reference table from highest-impact points
5. Cross-reference exhibits to witnesses and contradictions

## Output Structure

### Quick-Reference Table (Top of Document)

| Witness | Top Impeachment Point | Source | Theme |
|---------|----------------------|--------|-------|
| {Name} | {One-line summary} | {Doc, p.XX:LL-LL} | {Theme} |

List 2-3 highest-impact points per witness.

### Per-Witness Sections

Organize each witness by theme:

```
## [Witness Name] — [Role]

### Theme: [e.g., "Knowledge of Defect"]

**Purpose:** [IMPEACH | ADMIT | FOUNDATION | CREDIBILITY | ELEMENT | EXPERT]

- **Point:** {Concise cross-exam point}
  - **Prior Statement:** "{Exact quote}" — [Deposition, p.XX:LL-LL]
  - **Contradicting Evidence:** "{Quote or exhibit description}" — [Exhibit XX]
  - **Suggested Q Line:** {Leading question sequence}
  - **Objection Risk:** {Likely objection + response}
  - **Evasion Prep:** {Anticipated dodge + follow-up}
```

### Point Tags

| Tag | Purpose |
|-----|---------|
| `IMPEACH` | Prior inconsistent statement (FRE 613) |
| `ADMIT` | Elicit favorable admission |
| `FOUNDATION` | Establish/undermine foundation for testimony |
| `CREDIBILITY` | Bias, interest, motive, perception, memory |
| `ELEMENT` | Directly proves/negates a claim element |
| `EXPERT` | Challenge methodology, assumptions, qualifications |

### Expert Witnesses

For experts, additionally address:
- Methodology challenges (Daubert/Frye factors)
- Unsupported or contradicted factual assumptions
- Qualification gaps relevant to opinions offered
- Prior inconsistent opinions in other cases

### Exhibit Cross-Reference Table

| Exhibit # | Description | Witnesses | Key Contradiction |
|-----------|-------------|-----------|-------------------|
| {Ex. #} | {Brief desc} | {Names + cite} | {What it undermines} |

## Rules

- **Citation format:** `[Document Name, p.XX:LL-LL]` — every point requires a pinpoint cite
- **Leading questions only** for all suggested Q lines (answerable yes/no)
- **Side-by-side contradictions:** Present conflicting statements together with full citations
- **Sequence strategically:** Control questions first, build to impeachment payoff
- **Flag hearsay paths** where a line may open the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence
- **Adjust tone:** Simple concrete questions for lay witnesses; technical precision for experts
- **Never fabricate testimony** — only include statements found in provided materials
- **Flag jurisdiction-specific rules** (e.g., Queen Caroline's Rule states requiring foundation before extrinsic evidence)

---

**Key changes from original:**

- **Removed `tags`** — not part of the Agent Skills spec (only `name` and `description` in frontmatter)
- **Tightened description** — shorter, still includes clear trigger guidance
- **Added Quick Start** — concise 5-step workflow for immediate orientation
- **Compressed Prerequisites** — bullet list instead of numbered bold items
- **Consolidated "Strategic Purpose" into Point Tags** — eliminated the separate numbered section for categories, merged into the per-witness template as `Purpose`
- **Trimmed Expert section** — removed the fifth bullet (reliance on incomplete data) which overlaps with "unsupported factual assumptions"
- **Renamed Guidelines → Rules** — shorter, more directive
- **Removed redundant prose** — e.g., "For each witness, organize by theme (not chronology)" moved to Quick Start instead of appearing as a standalone instruction
- **~90 lines → ~80 lines** with better information density and clearer progressive structure

Attribution

lev-oslev-os
View sourceMore from lev-os →
SSkills DirectorySkills Directory

Your tool, in front of Claude Code builders.

3 founder slots · $299/mo · GSC-verified traffic · sponsors can never buy grades.

See placements

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!

SSkills DirectorySkills Directory

Your tool, in front of Claude Code builders.

3 founder slots · $299/mo · GSC-verified traffic · sponsors can never buy grades.

See placements

Related Skills

Competitor Analysis

This skill provides comprehensive analysis of competitor SEO and GEO strategies, revealing what's working in your market and identifying opportunities to outperform the competition.

1823 votes

Deep Research

Universal deep research agent team. 13-agent pipeline for rigorous academic research on any topic. 7 modes: full research, quick brief, paper review, lit-review, fact-check, Socratic guided research dialogue, and systematic review with optional meta-analysis. Covers research question formulation, Socratic mentoring, methodology design, systematic literature search, source verification, cross-source synthesis, risk of bias assessment, meta-analysis, APA 7.0 report compilation, editorial review...

452202 votes

Paperclip Distill

Use when an operation issue is a Paperclip cursor-window, distill, or backfill — `operationType: "distill"` or `"backfill"` and the body references a Paperclip source bundle for a project or root issue. Turn raw Paperclip activity into a wiki-insightful project page, decisions log, and history note. This skill exists specifically to replace the stiff, datestamp-heavy templated output that the deterministic distiller produces.

805541 votes

Academic Pipeline

Orchestrator for the full academic research pipeline: research -> write -> integrity check -> review -> revise -> re-review -> re-revise -> final integrity check -> finalize. Coordinates deep-research, academic-paper, and academic-paper-reviewer into a seamless 10-stage workflow with mandatory integrity verification, two-stage peer review, and reproducible quality gates. Triggers on: academic pipeline, research to paper, full paper workflow, paper pipeline, end-to-end paper, research-to-publi...

452201 votes

Exa Search

Semantic search, similar content discovery, and structured research using Exa API

304951 votes
View all in research →