executing-plans
executing-plans
Use when executing an implementation plan in the current session as the implementer yourself — your human partner chose inline execution, or no subagent tool is available
reply-brief-appellantDrafts an appellant's Reply Brief that rebuts the appellee's response and reinforces the case for reversal. Triggers when drafting appellant reply briefs, appellate rebuttals, or the final pre-argument written submission.
Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs
name: reply-brief-appellant language: en description: Drafts an appellant's Reply Brief that rebuts the appellee's response and reinforces the case for reversal. Triggers when drafting appellant reply briefs, appellate rebuttals, or the final pre-argument written submission. tags:
Produces a strategically selective Reply Brief — the appellant's final written submission before oral argument — that dismantles the appellee's response while reinforcing grounds for reversal.
| Section | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Cover Page | Full caption, court name, docket number, document title per local rules, counsel info with bar number |
| Table of Contents | Argumentative headings — each a standalone persuasive statement the court can adopt |
| Table of Authorities | Cases, statutes, regulations, secondary sources — separately categorized with page references |
| Introduction | 2–3 pages: reframe core issue in light of appellee's response; identify 2–3 fatal weaknesses; correct any standard-of-review errors |
| Argument | Organized rebuttals using techniques and headings below |
| Conclusion | 1–2 pages: synthesize (don't repeat); restate specific relief matching opening brief exactly; no new arguments or citations |
| Certificate of Compliance | Word count, method, font details, rule citation |
| Certificate of Service | Date, method, all parties' contact information |
| Technique | Trigger |
|---|---|
| Record correction | Appellee mischaracterizes facts — quote record verbatim with pinpoint cites |
| Context restoration | Appellee cherry-picks — present full context showing changed analysis |
| Authority distinction | Appellee cites inapposite cases — identify factual/legal/procedural differences |
| Omission highlighting | Appellee ignores controlling precedent — emphasize silence as concession |
| Standard-of-review leverage | Appellee applies wrong standard — correct and show result under proper standard |
| Concede-and-overcome | Appellee raises a strong point — acknowledge briefly, then show it doesn't change the outcome |
Every point heading must be argumentative and adoptable by the court as a holding.
[VERIFY]