Skip to content
Back to skills

Judgment Summary

ASecurity

Produces structured U.S. litigation judgment summaries from court opinions or final orders. Use when summarizing a judgment, opinion, final decision, post-trial ruling, appeal outcome, or case disposition brief. Covers caption, procedural history, facts, issues, standards of review, holdings, precedent treatment, concurrences/dissents, disposition, and practical implications with pinpoint citations.

  • 16 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 1 view
  • Added June 7, 2026
ai-agentsgit

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned June 7, 2026

npx -y skills add ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open --skill judgment-summary --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Judgment Summary?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Judgment Summary
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/thomasmoreai-judgment-summary/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/thomasmoreai-judgment-summary)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: judgment-summary
title: Judgment Summary
description: Produces structured U.S. litigation judgment summaries from court opinions or final orders. Use when summarizing a judgment, opinion, final decision, post-trial ruling, appeal outcome, or case disposition brief. Covers caption, procedural history, facts, issues, standards of review, holdings, precedent treatment, concurrences/dissents, disposition, and practical implications with pinpoint citations.
author: CaseMark
author_url: https://github.com/CaseMark/skills/tree/main/skills/legal/judgment-summary
license: Apache-2.0
version: 0.1.0
execution_mode: open
jurisdiction: us
practice: litigation
language: en
---

# Judgment Summary

Citation-ready summary of a final judgment or opinion — holdings, standards of review, precedent treatment, and practical impact.

## Prerequisites

1. Full opinion or judgment text with page/paragraph numbering.
2. Case citation details: court, docket number, decision date, judge/panel.
3. Procedural posture and any relevant lower court rulings.

## Quick Start

1. Extract case metadata; confirm jurisdiction.
2. Identify issues, standards of review, and holdings with pinpoint cites.
3. Separate background, material, and disputed facts.
4. Track precedent treatment and circuit-split implications.
5. Capture disposition, remand instructions, and deadlines.
6. Translate holdings into practical implications — no advocacy.

Fill every section below. If a field is missing, write `Not stated`.

## Template

```
CASE CAPTION
- Case name:
- Court:
- Docket no.:
- Decision date:
- Judge/Panel:
- Jurisdiction:
- Prior history:

SYNOPSIS (<=150 words)
- Core holding:
- Practical significance:

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
- Lower court decisions:
- Basis for appeal/review:
- Standard(s) of review:
- Scope of review:

FACTS
- Background facts:
- Material facts:
- Disputed facts:

ISSUES AND HOLDINGS
| Issue | Legal Standard | Rule/Reasoning | Holding | Pin Cite |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |

PRECEDENT TREATMENT
| Case | Treatment (Followed/Distinguished/Overruled/Questioned) | Point of Use | Pin Cite |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
- Circuit split or split resolution: Yes/No + brief note

CONCURRENCE / DISSENT
- Author(s):
- Key departures:
- Implications:

DISPOSITION
- Result (affirmed/reversed/vacated/remanded):
- Remand instructions:
- Costs/fees:
- Deadlines or conditions:

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
- Litigation impact:
- Transactional/compliance impact:
- Evidence/procedure impact:
- Risk posture or strategy notes:

KEY CITATIONS
- Holdings:
- Critical facts:
- Notable reasoning:
```

Target length: 1,500–3,000 words unless the decision is unusually short.

## Pitfalls

- **Holdings vs. dicta**: Distinguish explicitly; never elevate dicta to holding status.
- **Neutral tone**: No advocacy or editorial framing.
- **Court terminology**: Preserve the court's exact language for standards and tests.
- **Uncertain citations**: Mark with `[VERIFY]`.
- **No inference**: Do not infer facts or procedural steps absent from the opinion.
- **Non-U.S. courts**: Note deviations from U.S. practice in the Synopsis.
- **Pinpoint cites required**: Every holding and every court-labeled material fact needs one.

---

**Key changes made:**

- **Frontmatter**: Removed `tags` (not in spec), tightened `description` to be third-person with clear trigger keywords while staying under 1024 chars.
- **Overview**: Condensed to a single line with em-dash for scannability.
- **Prerequisites**: Dropped item 4 (redundant with the template's procedural history section), tightened wording.
- **Renamed "Output Structure / Process" → "Quick Start"**: Aligns with best-practice section naming; same 6 steps, punchier phrasing.
- **Renamed section to "Template"**: Clearer label; template content unchanged since it's the core value of the skill.
- **Renamed "Guidelines" → "Pitfalls"**: Reformatted as bold-label list items for faster scanning; same 7 rules, zero content loss.
- **Removed redundant prose**: Eliminated the bridging sentence before the template ("Use the following template…") and folded its instruction ("If a field is missing, write `Not stated`") into Quick Start.

Attribution

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

Loading comments…