brief-section-drafter

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

/brief-section-drafter

Load

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md

→ case theory, house style.

Follow the workflow and reference below.
Draft in house format/tone/citation style. Consistent with theory.
Output: draft section. Flag every place a fact or cite needs verification.

加载

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md

→ 案件理论、律所风格。

遵循下方工作流程和参考规则。
按照律所格式/语气/引用风格起草内容，确保与案件理论一致。
输出：章节初稿。标记所有需要核实事实或引用的位置。

Brief Section Drafter

诉状章节起草工具

Witness statements for England & Wales — PD 57AC

英格兰及威尔士地区证人陈述 — PD 57AC

If the user's jurisdiction includes England & Wales and they're asking for a trial witness statement for the Business & Property Courts (or any CPR-governed proceeding), PD 57AC applies. The statement must be in the witness's own words, must not contain argument, must identify the documents the witness used to refresh their memory, and must carry the required confirmation of compliance and the legal representative's certificate.

Drafting a narrative "as the witness" from a chronology, document set, or your account of the case is exactly what PD 57AC was designed to prevent. Courts are actively sanctioning AI-assisted witness statement drafting. If you ask me to do it, I won't.

What I WILL do: prepare question prompts to elicit the witness's actual recollection; capture and organize what the witness says (their words, not mine); generate the list of documents they were shown; run a PD 57AC compliance checklist against a statement they've drafted; draft the solicitor's certificate of compliance. I help you get the witness's evidence into the statement. I don't write the evidence.

For US depositions, declarations, and affidavits: different rules, but the same discipline applies. A declaration in the declarant's voice that the declarant didn't write is a credibility problem at best.

如果用户所在司法管辖区包含英格兰及威尔士，且其要求起草商业与财产法院（或任何受CPR管辖程序）的庭审证人陈述，则需遵守PD 57AC规定。陈述必须使用证人本人的表述，不得包含论点，必须明确证人用于唤起记忆的文件，并附带合规确认声明及法律代表证明。

根据时间线、文件集或案件描述以“证人视角”撰写叙述性内容，正是PD 57AC旨在禁止的行为。 法院正积极制裁AI辅助起草证人陈述的行为。若您要求我进行此类操作，我将予以拒绝。

我可以提供的帮助：准备引导证人回忆真实情况的问题提纲；记录并整理证人的表述（使用其原话而非我的表述）；生成证人查阅过的文件清单；针对证人起草的陈述运行PD 57AC合规检查清单；起草律师合规证明。我会协助您将证人的证词转化为陈述，但不会代笔撰写证词内容。

对于美国的证词、声明及宣誓书：规则有所不同，但遵循同样的原则。以声明人语气撰写但并非其本人所写的声明，往好里说会引发可信度问题。

Purpose

目的

A good brief section is consistent with the theory, cited to the record, written in house style, and checkable. This skill produces the first draft — emphasis on draft. Partner edits.

一份优质的诉状章节需与案件理论一致、有记录可依、符合律所风格且可核查。本工具用于生成初稿——重点是“初稿”，后续需由合伙人审核修改。

Written or oral?

书面还是口头？

Ask before drafting: "Is this for a written submission or oral argument?" They are different crafts:

Written: thorough. Cover the points, develop the authority, anticipate the responses.
Oral (rebuttal, closing, argument): strategic. Pick the 3-4 points that matter most. Concede or ignore the weak ones. Lead with your strongest. A tribunal remembers the first two minutes and the last two. "Too thorough" for oral advocacy reads as unfocused. If you're responding to a multi-issue submission, tell the user which issues you'd press and which you'd let go — that's the draft of the strategy, not just the words.

起草前需询问：“此内容用于书面提交还是口头辩论？”二者属于不同的创作范畴：

书面提交：内容详尽。涵盖所有要点、拓展法律依据、预判对方回应。
口头（反驳、结案陈词、辩论）：侧重策略。挑选3-4个最关键的要点，对薄弱点予以让步或忽略，从最强论点切入。裁判庭只会记住开头和结尾的两分钟内容。口头辩护中“过于详尽”会显得缺乏重点。若您需要回应多争议点的提交材料，请告知用户您会强调哪些争议点、放弃哪些——这是策略初稿，而非单纯的文字内容。

Record fidelity — quotes and pinpoints

记录准确性——引用与精准定位

Two rules that govern every citation and every quotation in advocacy drafting. The canonical statement lives in the plugin's

CLAUDE.md

shared guardrails; repeated here because this skill is the most common place the rule gets tested.

Verbatim quotes from the record must be verbatim. Never put quotation marks around words attributed to opposing counsel, a witness, the court, or any record document unless you have the exact passage in front of you and can cite to it. A quote that's almost right is worse than a paraphrase — it misrepresents the record, it's sanctionable if filed, and it will be caught. When you want to characterize what someone said but can't find the exact words:

Paraphrase without quotation marks, attributing clearly: "Opposing counsel argued that X
```
[verify against record — Tr. p. __]
```
."

Mark the placeholder:

[verify exact quote — record cite pending]

Never fill the gap. An invented quote, even one word, is a fabrication. The reviewer note must flag every
```
[verify exact quote]
```
in the output.

Before citing any passage with quotation marks, have the source open. If you're working from memory or a summary, no quotation marks.

Pinpoint cites must support the whole proposition. If the argument is "opposing counsel said X, Y, and Z" and you're citing one pinpoint, verify the pinpoint supports X AND Y AND Z. If it only supports Z, either (a) split the cite — "said X (Tr. p. 10), Y (Tr. p. 12), and Z (Tr. p. 15)" — or (b) narrow the proposition to what the pinpoint actually supports. A cite that supports part of a claim is how a tribunal catches you stretching. It's the single most common way a lawyer's credibility erodes in front of a court. This is the "misgrounded citation" failure mode: the cite exists, the passage exists, but the passage doesn't support the proposition as stated.

以下两条规则适用于辩护文书起草中的所有引用和引述。标准说明见插件的

CLAUDE.md

共享准则；此处重复说明是因为本工具最常涉及该规则的验证。

记录中的原话引述必须完全准确。 除非您能找到确切段落并提供引用，否则切勿将引号用于对方律师、证人、法院或任何记录文件的表述。近似的引述比转述更糟——它会歪曲记录内容，若提交后被发现可能会招致处罚。当您想描述某人的表述但无法找到确切文字时：

不加引号进行转述，并明确注明来源：“对方律师主张X
```
[请核对记录——庭审记录第__页]
```
。”

标记占位符：

[请核实确切引述——待补充记录引用]

切勿自行填补空白。编造引述，哪怕只是一个词，也属于伪造内容。审核备注必须标记输出中所有
```
[请核实确切引述]
```
的位置。

在使用引号引用任何段落前，请确认能查阅到来源。若仅凭记忆或摘要进行创作，请勿使用引号。

精准引用必须支持完整主张。 如果论点是“对方律师称X、Y、Z”，而您仅引用了一处精准位置，请核实该位置是否同时支持X、Y、Z。若仅支持Z，则要么(a)拆分引用——“称X（庭审记录第10页）、Y（庭审记录第12页）、Z（庭审记录第15页）”，要么(b)将主张限定为该精准位置实际支持的内容。仅支持部分主张的引用会被裁判庭识破，这是律师在法庭上可信度受损最常见的原因。这属于“引用依据不足”的错误模式：引用存在、段落存在，但段落无法支撑所述主张。

Candor about weak arguments

坦诚对待薄弱论点

When the law is against you, say so. When an argument is weak — the authority cuts the other way, the facts don't support it, the inference is a stretch — don't construct a shaky argument and present it as if it were solid. Flag it:

"This point is weak — [authority] cuts the other way. Consider whether to press it (here's how you'd frame it), concede and pivot to [stronger point], or drop it.
[review — strategic call]
."

Asserting a weak argument without flagging it erodes the lawyer's credibility with the tribunal and creates a candor problem (MR 3.1 — a lawyer must have a basis in law and fact). The draft should make the lawyer smarter, not confident about a bad position.

当法律对您不利时，请如实说明。当论点薄弱——法律依据相悖、事实不支持、推论牵强——切勿构建站不住脚的论点并当作确凿观点呈现。需标记出来：

“此论点薄弱——[法律依据]与之相悖。请考虑是否坚持该论点（以下是表述方式）、让步并转向[更强论点]，或放弃该论点。
[请审核——策略决策]
。”

未标记薄弱论点就进行主张，会损害律师在裁判庭的可信度，并引发坦诚性问题（MR 3.1——律师的主张必须有法律和事实依据）。初稿应帮助律师做出更明智的判断，而非让其对错误立场产生信心。

Citation extraction coverage

引用核查范围

When this draft is cite-checked — by you, by another skill, or by a reviewer running through what you produced — the check must be exhaustive, not selective:

First pass: extract. Read the whole document and build a list of every citation — cases, statutes, regulations, record cites, secondary authority. Report the count: "Found [N] citations."
Second pass: check. Check each one against the source. Don't sample. Don't stop when you get tired.
Report coverage. At the end: "Checked [N] of [M] citations. [K] could not be retrieved — verify manually. [J] confirmed. [I] flagged as potential miscitations. [H] flagged as misgrounded (cite exists but doesn't support the proposition)."
When source text is unavailable, say "could not check," never "confirmed." A false positive ("this cite is fine" when you couldn't read the source) is worse than "couldn't check this one."
The hardest errors to catch are partial support. A cite that backs part of a claim but not all of it. Read the proposition the brief makes, read what the source actually holds, and compare element by element.

当对初稿进行引用核查时——无论是您本人、其他工具还是审核人员——核查必须全面，而非选择性核查：

第一阶段：提取。通读全文，列出所有引用——案例、法规、规章、记录引用、次要法律依据。报告数量：“共发现[N]处引用。”
第二阶段：核查。逐一核对每个引用与来源。请勿抽样核查，请勿中途停止。
报告核查覆盖情况。最后说明：“已核查[M]处引用中的[N]处。[K]处无法检索——请手动核实。[J]处已确认无误。[I]处标记为疑似错误引用。[H]处标记为依据不足（引用存在但无法支撑主张）。”
当无法获取源文本时，请注明“无法核查”，切勿注明“已确认”。误报（“此引用无误”但您未查阅来源）比“无法核查”更严重。
最难发现的错误是部分支持。引用仅支持部分主张而非全部。请通读诉状中的主张、来源实际内容，并逐一比对要素。

Echo vs repeat

呼应而非重复

Echo key framings; don't lift sentences. Consistency with prior submissions is good — it reinforces your theory of the case and makes the record coherent. But there's a line between echoing and repeating.

Echo: use the same key terms, the same framing of the central issue, the same characterization of the other side's theory.
Don't: lift whole sentences, re-use distinctive phrasings so often the tribunal notices, or repeat the same argument verbatim without advancing it.

A rebuttal that sounds like a re-read of the opening loses ground. The draft should advance the argument, not restate it.

呼应关键表述框架；切勿照搬句子。与先前提交内容保持一致性是好事——它能强化案件理论，使记录连贯。但呼应与重复之间存在界限。

呼应：使用相同的关键术语、相同的核心争议框架、相同的对方理论描述方式。
切勿：照搬整句、过度重复独特表述以至于引起裁判庭注意、或在未推进论点的情况下逐字重复同一论据。

与开场陈词雷同的反驳会失分。初稿应推进论点，而非重复表述。

Load context

加载上下文

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md

→ case theory, house style (citation format, structure, tone, length norms).

Conflicts gate — unbypassable. Before drafting, check

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/_log.yaml

for the matter slug this skill is being invoked on. If the matter is not in

_log.yaml

, refuse and route:

"I don't see [matter slug] in the matter log. Run
/litigation-legal:matter-intake
first so the conflicts check runs and the matter workspace is set up. I won't draft substantive work product on a matter that hasn't been intaken — the conflicts check is the gate."

Do not proceed on an unintaken matter. Intake is what runs conflicts, sets up

matter.md

history.md

, and writes the

_log.yaml

row this skill reads from. Skipping it produces work in an unmanaged location and bypasses the firm's conflicts discipline.

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md

→ 案件理论、律所风格（引用格式、结构、语气、篇幅规范）。

冲突检查门槛——不可绕过。起草前，请检查

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/_log.yaml

中是否包含本工具调用对应的事务标识。若事务未在

_log.yaml

中记录，请拒绝操作并引导：

“我在事务日志中未找到[事务标识]。请先运行
/litigation-legal:matter-intake
，完成冲突检查并设置事务工作区。我不会为未录入的事务起草实质性工作成果——冲突检查是必经门槛。”

不得为未录入的事务继续操作。录入流程会进行冲突检查、设置

matter.md

history.md

并在

_log.yaml

中写入本工具所需的记录项。跳过该步骤会导致工作成果存储在不受管理的位置，并违反律所的冲突管理规则。

Workflow

工作流程

Step 1: Which section?

步骤1：确定章节类型？

Section	What it does	Inputs needed
Statement of facts	Tells the story, in our frame, cited to record	Chronology, key docs, depo cites
Standard of review	Sets the bar the court applies	Procedural posture
Argument	Makes the legal case	Issue, authorities, facts
Conclusion	Asks for relief	What we want

章节类型	作用	所需输入
事实陈述	以我方视角讲述案件故事，附记录引用	时间线、关键文件、证词引用
审查标准	明确法院适用的评判标准	程序状态
论点	构建法律论据	争议点、法律依据、事实
结论	请求救济措施	我方诉求

Step 2: Theory check

步骤2：案件理论核查

Before writing: what does this section need to accomplish for the theory?

Statement of facts: Frame the story so our theory is the natural reading.
Argument: Connect the law to the facts in a way that supports the theory.

If the section you're about to draft contradicts the theory — stop. Either the theory is wrong or the section approach is wrong. Flag it, don't paper over it.

起草前思考：本章节需如何服务于案件理论？

事实陈述：构建故事框架，使我方案件理论成为自然解读。
论点：将法律与事实关联，以支撑案件理论。

若即将起草的章节与案件理论相悖——停止操作。要么案件理论有误，要么章节起草思路有误。请标记问题，切勿掩盖。

Step 3: Draft in house style

步骤3：按照律所风格起草

Research the forum's local rules and the judge's standing orders for length, formatting, citation, and filing requirements; don't rely on preferences. Cite primary sources (local rule number, standing order section) in the drafting notes. Verify currency — local rules change.

Per

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md

Citation format: Bluebook, ALWD, or local — match exactly. Signals, pincites, parentheticals per house practice, confirmed against the local rule.
Structure: How does this firm organize arguments? CRAC? Topic sentences first? Headings that argue vs. headings that describe?
Tone: Aggressive ("Defendants' argument is meritless") or measured ("The evidence does not support Defendants' position")? Match the seed brief.
Length: per the local rule / standing order — never relying on "what this judge usually wants" when the rule is checkable.

研究管辖法院的本地规则及法官的常规指令，明确篇幅、格式、引用及提交要求；请勿依赖主观偏好。在起草备注中引用主要依据（本地规则编号、常规指令章节）。请核实规则时效性——本地规则可能会更新。

根据

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md

：

引用格式：严格遵循Bluebook、ALWD或本地规则。信号词、精准引用、补充说明需符合律所惯例，并与本地规则确认一致。
结构：律所如何组织论点？采用CRAC结构？先写主题句？论点式标题还是描述性标题？
语气：激进型（“被告论点毫无依据”）还是稳健型（“证据不支持被告立场”）？请与初始诉状保持一致。
篇幅：遵循本地规则/常规指令——当规则可核查时，切勿依赖“法官通常偏好”的说法。

Step 4: Cite everything

步骤4：全面引用

Every fact → record cite (Bates, depo page:line, exhibit). Every legal proposition → case cite with pincite.

Marker discipline — use liberally:

```
[VERIFY: specific factual assertion]
```
— anything not confirmed against the record
```
[UNCERTAIN: specific legal proposition]
```
— anything not confirmed against current authority

[CITE NEEDED: specific cite — fact/rule believed but cite not yet pinned]

A draft with unresolved markers is not final. The markers make the verification step explicit.

No silent supplement. If a research query to the configured legal research tool (Westlaw, CourtListener, Trellis, Descrybe, or firm platform) returns few or no results for an authority the draft needs, report what was found and stop. Do NOT fill the gap from web search or model knowledge without asking. Say: "The search returned [N] results from [tool]. Coverage appears thin for [issue / holding]. Options: (1) broaden the search query, (2) try a different research tool, (3) search the web — results will be tagged

[web search — verify]

and should be checked against a primary source before relying, or (4) leave the

[CITE NEEDED]

marker and stop here. Which would you like?" A partner decides whether to accept lower-confidence sources; the skill does not decide for them.

Source attribution. Tag every citation in the draft with where it came from:

[Westlaw]

[CourtListener]

[Trellis]

[Descrybe]

, or the MCP tool name for citations retrieved from a legal research connector;

[web search — verify]

for web-search citations;

[model knowledge — verify]

for citations recalled from training data;

[user provided]

for citations the partner or senior associate supplied. Citations tagged

verify

carry higher fabrication risk than tool-retrieved citations and should be checked first. Never strip or collapse the tags — they are the reviewing attorney's fastest signal about which citations to Shepardize first before the brief is filed.

每个事实 → 附记录引用（Bates编号、证词页码:行号、证物编号）。每个法律主张 → 附带精准引用的案例引用。

标记规范——灵活使用：

```
[VERIFY: specific factual assertion]
```
—— 所有未通过记录确认的内容
```
[UNCERTAIN: specific legal proposition]
```
—— 所有未通过现行法律依据确认的内容

[CITE NEEDED: specific cite — fact/rule believed but cite not yet pinned]

—— 所有认为存在事实/规则但尚未确定引用的内容

带有未解决标记的初稿并非终稿。标记使核查步骤更加明确。

不得自行补充。若向配置的法律研究工具（Westlaw、CourtListener、Trellis、Descrybe或律所平台）发起的研究查询，为初稿所需的法律依据返回少量或无结果，请报告搜索结果并停止操作。未经许可，请勿通过网络搜索或模型知识库填补空白。请告知：“通过[工具]搜索返回[N]条结果。[争议点/判决]的相关覆盖内容较少。可选方案：(1)扩大搜索范围，(2)尝试其他研究工具，(3)进行网络搜索——结果将标记为

[web search — verify]

，且在依赖前需通过主要依据核实，或(4)保留

[CITE NEEDED]

标记并停止操作。您希望选择哪种方案？” 由合伙人决定是否接受可信度较低的来源；本工具不得自行决策。

来源归因。为初稿中的每个引用标记来源：通过法律研究连接器获取的引用标记为

[Westlaw]

、

[CourtListener]

、

[Trellis]

、

[Descrybe]

或MCP工具名称；网络搜索获取的引用标记为

[web search — verify]

；模型知识库回忆的引用标记为

[model knowledge — verify]

；合伙人或资深律师提供的引用标记为

[user provided]

。标记为

verify

的引用比工具获取的引用存在更高的伪造风险，应优先核查。切勿删除或合并这些标记——它们是审核律师在诉状提交前判断哪些引用需优先进行Shepardize核查的最快捷信号。

Step 5: Output

步骤5：输出

Before the brief is filed (the consequential act — this skill drafts, but the gate runs at the filing step regardless of who triggers it): Read

## Who's using this

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md

. If the Role is Non-lawyer:

Filing a brief has legal consequences — it becomes the record, binds the client on arguments and facts asserted, and a Rule 11 / equivalent certification attaches to signature. Have you reviewed this with an attorney? If yes, proceed. If no, here's a brief to bring to them:
[Generate a 1-page summary: the section drafted, the theory tie-in, authorities relied on, open
[VERIFY]
/
[UNCERTAIN]
/
[CITE NEEDED]
markers unresolved, what could go wrong (factual misstatement, unsupported citation, argument outside the theory), what to ask the attorney before filing.]
If you need to find a licensed attorney, solicitor, barrister, or other authorised legal professional in your jurisdiction: your professional regulator's referral service is the fastest starting point (state bar in the US, SRA/Bar Standards Board in England & Wales, Law Society in Scotland/NI/Ireland/Canada/Australia, or your jurisdiction's equivalent).

Do not treat the draft as filing-ready without an explicit yes. Drafting itself does not require the gate — filing does.

The section, in house style, with markers inline.

Preface (not in the brief — a note to the reviewing attorney):

markdown

[WORK-PRODUCT HEADER — per plugin config ## Outputs — differs by role; see `## Who's using this`]

在诉状提交前（关键操作——本工具仅负责起草，但无论谁触发提交，均需经过该门槛）： 阅读

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md

中的

## Who's using this

部分。若角色为非律师：

提交诉状会产生法律后果——它将成为记录、约束客户所主张的论点和事实，且会附带Rule 11或同等规则的证明文件。您是否已与律师审核过此内容？若是，请继续。若否，请将以下摘要提交给律师：
[生成1页摘要：起草的章节内容、与案件理论的关联、所依赖的法律依据、未解决的
[VERIFY]
/
[UNCERTAIN]
/
[CITE NEEDED]
标记、可能出现的问题（事实错误、引用无依据、论点偏离案件理论）、提交前需向律师确认的事项。]
若您需要在所在司法管辖区寻找持牌律师、事务律师、出庭律师或其他授权法律专业人士：您所在地区的专业监管机构推荐服务是最快的起点（美国为州律师协会，英格兰及威尔士为SRA/律师标准委员会，苏格兰/北爱尔兰/爱尔兰/加拿大/澳大利亚为律师协会，或所在司法管辖区的对应机构）。

未经明确确认，切勿将初稿视为可提交版本。起草本身无需经过该门槛，但提交需要。

输出符合律所风格的章节内容，内嵌标记。

前置说明（不属于诉状内容——给审核律师的备注）：

markdown

[工作成果标题 — 按插件配置## Outputs — 因角色而异；详见`## Who's using this`]

Drafting Notes — [Section] — [date]

起草备注 — [章节类型] — [日期]

Theory tie-in: [How this section supports the case theory] Authorities relied on: [list — all need Shepardizing] Record cites to verify: [N] flagged inline Open questions for the partner: [anything the draft assumes that should be confirmed] Length: [words/pages vs. house norm]

Cite check before filing. Citations in this draft were generated by an AI model and have not been verified against a primary source. Run every case, statute, and regulation through Westlaw, CourtListener, or your firm's research platform for accuracy, good-law status, and subsequent history. Fabricated or misquoted citations in filed briefs have resulted in Rule 11 sanctions.

Draft only — not a filing. Filing this section initiates (or participates in) a proceeding and carries Rule 11 / Rule 3.3 exposure. A licensed attorney reviews, edits, and takes professional responsibility before it goes on the docket. Do not file unreviewed.

undefined

案件理论关联： [本章节如何支撑案件理论] 所依赖的法律依据： [列表 — 所有内容均需进行Shepardize核查] 待核实的记录引用： [N]处已内嵌标记 需合伙人确认的问题： [初稿中所有需确认的假设内容] 篇幅： [字数/页数 vs 律所规范]

提交前需进行引用核查。本初稿中的引用由AI模型生成，尚未通过主要依据核实。请将所有案例、法规及规章通过Westlaw、CourtListener或律所研究平台核查准确性、有效性及后续发展。提交的诉状中若存在伪造或错误引用，可能会引发Rule 11制裁。

仅为初稿 — 不可直接提交。提交本章节将启动（或参与）法律程序，并面临Rule 11/Rule 3.3规则的风险。需由持牌律师审核、修改并承担专业责任后，方可提交至案卷。请勿提交未经审核的内容。

undefined

Statement of facts specifics

事实陈述细则

The statement of facts is advocacy through selection and sequence, not argument.

Chronological unless there's a reason not to be
Every fact in the statement of facts must cite to the record — a page and line reference, a docket entry, an exhibit. "Or conceded" is not a substitute for a record cite. If the fact is established by a concession or stipulation, cite the stipulation document or the hearing transcript where the concession was made.
Frame through selection: which facts lead, which get one line, which get omitted (if not necessary and not helpful)
No argument. "The contract unambiguously required X" is argument. "The contract stated 'X.'" is fact.

事实陈述是通过筛选和排序进行辩护，而非直接提出论点。

除非有特殊原因，否则按时间顺序撰写
事实陈述中的每个事实必须附记录引用——页码和行号、案卷条目、证物编号。 “对方已承认”不能替代记录引用。若事实通过承认或约定确立，请引用约定文件或做出承认的庭审记录。
通过筛选构建框架：哪些事实作为开篇、哪些仅用一句话带过、哪些可省略（若不必要且无帮助）
不得包含论点。“合同明确要求X”是论点。“合同规定‘X’”是事实。

Argument section specifics

论点章节细则

Lead with the rule, not the facts (usually — house style may differ)
One argument per section. If it's really two arguments, it's two sections.
Address the other side's best counterargument. Don't hide from it — a brief that ignores the obvious counter is a brief the judge doesn't trust.
Parentheticals earn their space. If a parenthetical doesn't add something the cite alone doesn't, cut it.

通常先提出规则，再阐述事实（律所风格可能有所不同）
每个章节仅包含一个论点。若实际包含两个论点，则拆分为两个章节。
回应对方最有力的反驳论点。切勿回避——忽略明显反驳的诉状会失去法官的信任。
补充说明需具备价值。若补充说明无法提供引用本身未包含的信息，请删除。

What this skill does not do

本工具不提供的服务

Produce a final brief. It produces a draft. Every cite needs verification, every argument needs a partner's eyes.
Decide strategy. If there are two ways to argue the issue, flag both and let the partner choose.
File anything. Ever.

生成终版诉状。仅生成初稿。所有引用需核实，所有论点需经合伙人审核。
制定策略。若针对某争议点存在两种论证方式，请标记两种方式并由合伙人选择。
提交任何文件。永远不会。