scotus-argument-analyzer
From the author
Analyze a U.S. Supreme Court oral argument transcript for a lawyer who has not read it: each advocate's position, authorities discussed, the bench's concerns, tentative judicial leanings, possible dispositions, and advocacy strengths and weaknesses, with transcript pinpoints. Use for oral argument analysis, a SCOTUS argument report, or an assessment of how the justices approached a case. Requires readable transcript content; research, Python tallying, and document creation are optional, with disclosed fallbacks.
Install
npx skills add lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills --skill scotus-argument-analyzer -a claude-code
Installs to .claude/skills/scotus-argument-analyzer/ · Each command fetches the skill straight from GitHub with the open skills CLI.
No download: this skill’s licence (APACHE-2.0) does not let us redistribute its files. The install commands fetch them from GitHub instead.
Want your agent to suggest skills while you type? See how to use skills from your IDE.
Safety checks on SKILL.md
- Ships scripts we have not reviewedLow
Why 81
aiqbench computes the trust score from public signals. It is not a security audit, so read a skill before you install it.
Similar skills
Closest to this one by what they do and when they are used.
- oral-argumentlawve-ai/awesome-legal-skillsPrepare a lawyer for an adversarial proceeding the way Neal Katyal's "Harvey" prepared him for the SCOTUS tariffs argument: profile the tribunal from their prior opinions and questions, predict the specific questions you will face, map narrow "escape routes" each judge can walk through without abandoning prior commitments, and spar adversarially until only the strongest answers survive. The model is the sparring partner. The human still wins the case. Use when: preparing for oral argument, appellate argument, motion hearing, evidentiary hearing, deposition (taking or defending), arbitration, mediation, or any proceeding where a known decision-maker will fire questions at you in real time. Also useful for stress-testing a brief before filing. Proactively suggest when: the user mentions an upcoming hearing/argument with named judges or arbitrators, drafts a brief and wants it pressure-tested, asks "what will Justice X / Judge Y ask me," or talks about preparing for a specific bench.Testing★ 888
- Opposing Counsel Reviewlawve-ai/awesome-legal-skillsAct as experienced opposing counsel to attack, undermine, and expose weaknesses in a legal argument, submission, witness statement, or structured reasoning. Produces a six-part adversarial analysis: 1. A core theory of attack identifying the single most effective way to defeat the argument; 2. A reconstructed version of the opposing argument stripped of rhetoric to expose its fragility; 3. Primary lines of attack grouped by category (legal misstatement, evidential gaps, causation failures, internal inconsistency, over-reliance on assertion, procedural weakness); 4. An "if I were the judge" section showing how a sceptical tribunal would dismantle the argument; 5. Surgical strikes - 3 to 5 high-impact points ready for oral submissions; and 6. An analysis of what the argument is trying to hide. Written in formal, adversarial British English for a legally trained audience.Engineering★ 888
- meeting-insights-analyzerComposioHQ/awesome-claude-skillsAnalyzes meeting transcripts and recordings to uncover behavioral patterns, communication insights, and actionable feedback. Identifies when you avoid conflict, use filler words, dominate conversations, or miss opportunities to listen. Perfect for professionals seeking to improve their communication and leadership skills.Other★ 77.7K
- statute-analysisborghei/Claude-SkillsStatute and regulation interpretation framework. Use when reading statutes, classifying requirements, analyzing operative keywords, applying canons of construction, or mapping compliance obligations from legislative text.Legal★ 962
- statute-guidelawve-ai/awesome-legal-skillsFirst-pass framework for reading, interpreting, and structuring statutory analysis of US federal, state, and local law. Produces draft analysis for attorney review — not legal advice. Use this skill whenever the user references a specific US statute, regulation, ordinance, or rule by citation, asks "what does [statute X] require," asks for compliance scoping, applicability thresholds, requirement extraction, exemption analysis, definitional analysis, federal preemption analysis, or multi-state comparison — even if they don't explicitly ask for "statutory analysis." Halts and asks for missing inputs rather than guessing. Out of scope for non-US law.Legal★ 888
- Judicial First Impressionlawve-ai/awesome-legal-skillsAssesses a legal argument, submission, or piece of structured reasoning from the perspective of a judge reading it cold under time pressure. Produces a structured seven-part assessment: what the case appears to be about, immediate points of confusion, what feels strong, what feels weak, what is assumed but unproved, a provisional confidence level (low/medium/high), and what would be needed to persuade. The skill does not rewrite, improve, or attack the argument — it tells you how it actually lands on a sceptical, experienced reader with no prior context. Works on skeleton arguments, witness statements, letters before action, position statements, academic articles, and non-legal structured reasoning.Legal★ 888
Ratings & reviews
—
no reviews
Tried this skill? Rate it to help others. Sign in
Discussion
Join the discussion. Sign in