The interface is localized. Skill descriptions and documents are machine-translated by AI into your language; code, commands, paths and technical terms stay in the original, and the author's document governs.
Explore skills
Development · SKILL.md

witness-summary

witness-summary

Generates structured summaries of witness statements for litigation, extracting chronological narratives, key facts, credibility indicators, and evidentiary value. Use when summarizing depositions, declarations, affidavits, or witness testimony during discovery, pre-trial, or trial preparation.

Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs

Skill documentation

GitHub

name: witness-summary language: en description: Generates structured summaries of witness statements for litigation, extracting chronological narratives, key facts, credibility indicators, and evidentiary value. Use when summarizing depositions, declarations, affidavits, or witness testimony during discovery, pre-trial, or trial preparation.

Witness Statement Summary

Produces a structured, reference-ready summary of witness statements for case preparation, deposition planning, and trial strategy.

Inputs

  1. Witness statement(s) — transcripts, declarations, affidavits, or deposition excerpts
  2. Case context (if available) — claims at issue, parties, key disputed facts
  3. Related exhibits (if available) — documents referenced in the statement

Quick Start

For each witness statement, produce sections 1–7 below in order. Preserve factual specificity throughout — never generalize away dates, amounts, or names. Quote significant language verbatim with transcript/paragraph citations.

Output Sections

1. Executive Summary

FieldContent
Witness nameFull name, role (party / fact witness / expert)
Relationship to caseConnection to parties and events
Statement typeDeclaration, deposition, interview, affidavit
Date of statementWhen given; date(s) of events described
Bottom line2–3 sentences: what this witness establishes and strategic significance

2. Witness Background

  • Biographical details relevant to credibility or weight
  • Relationship to parties
  • Basis of knowledge (percipient, expert, custodian)
  • Prior involvement in related proceedings

3. Chronological Fact Narrative

Date/TimeLocationEvent/ObservationCertaintyCorroboration
Specific dateWhereWhat witness describesHigh / Hedged / UncertainSupporting or conflicting evidence
  • Flag hedging language verbatim ("I believe," "to the best of my recollection")
  • Note temporal gaps the witness cannot account for

4. Key Evidentiary Points

  • Admissions — statements against interest or acknowledging opposing elements
  • Corroborations — alignment with other witnesses or documents
  • Contradictions — conflicts with other accounts, documents, or this witness's prior statements
  • Unique facts — information only this witness provides

5. Admissibility Concerns

Flag each issue with the governing rule:

IssueDetailRule
HearsayQuote the statement-within-a-statementFRE 801–807
Opinion/speculationLay opinion exceeding scopeFRE 701–702
Authentication gapsReferenced docs not yet authenticatedFRE 901
Privilege riskAttorney-client or work product implications—
Character/propensityTestimony triggering propensity issuesFRE 404

6. Credibility Assessment

FactorObservation
Internal consistencyContradictions within the statement
External consistencyAlignment with documentary/physical evidence
Bias/motiveFinancial interest, party relationship, litigation motivation
Demeanor indicatorsCertainty, qualifications, volunteered vs. elicited
Impeachment materialPrior inconsistent statements, convictions (FRE 609), bias

7. Strategic Assessment

  • Strengths — what testimony establishes favorably
  • Vulnerabilities — cross-examination and rebuttal lines
  • Recommended follow-up — additional discovery, corroborating evidence, deposition topics

Multi-Witness Sets

When summarizing multiple witnesses, add a Conflict Matrix cross-referencing disputed facts across witnesses. Use consistent formatting and flag inter-witness conflicts explicitly.

Pitfalls

  • Generalizing facts — preserve all dates, amounts, names, and sequences exactly
  • Missing hedging language — always quote qualifiers verbatim; they affect evidentiary weight
  • Unreferenced exhibits — mark documents referenced but not provided as [NOT REVIEWED]
  • Editorializing — keep factual sections neutral; reserve opinion for credibility and strategic sections
  • Jurisdiction assumptions — default to U.S. federal rules; adapt when jurisdiction is specified

Key changes made:

  • Frontmatter: Removed tags (not in the spec), tightened description with clearer trigger guidance
  • Structure: Reorganized into Quick Start → Output Sections → Pitfalls pattern per best practices
  • Conciseness: Removed the separate "Guidelines" prose section; distilled rules into a "Pitfalls" checklist and embedded key instructions in Quick Start
  • Multi-witness: Extracted from Guidelines into its own short section for discoverability
  • Token savings: Trimmed redundant wording across tables and bullet points while preserving all domain-accurate legal content (FRE rules, credibility factors, evidentiary categories)
Saved skills