L’interface est localisée ; les présentations et documents des Skills sont traduits automatiquement par IA dans votre langue. Le code, les commandes, chemins et termes techniques restent en version originale, et le document de l’auteur fait foi.
Explorer les Skills
Développement · SKILL.md

employee-dispute-summary

employee-dispute-summary

Produces a structured, source-cited summary of U.S. employment disputes for HR and litigation review. Trigger when asked to summarize an employee dispute, employment litigation, HR investigation, EEOC/agency matter, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, wage-hour dispute, or grievance/arbitration file.

Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs

Documentation de la Skill

GitHub

name: employee-dispute-summary language: en description: Produces a structured, source-cited summary of U.S. employment disputes for HR and litigation review. Trigger when asked to summarize an employee dispute, employment litigation, HR investigation, EEOC/agency matter, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, wage-hour dispute, or grievance/arbitration file. tags:

  • litigation
  • summarization
  • summary

Employee Dispute Summary

Produce an objective, source-cited summary of an employee dispute for HR and legal decision-making.

Quick Start

Collect before drafting:

  • Source corpus — complaints, witness statements, investigation reports, correspondence, disciplinary records, employment agreements, policies/handbooks, performance reviews, agency filings, pleadings, settlement docs
  • Parties — all individuals/entities with roles and relationships
  • Timeline anchors — key dates, deadlines, hearings, milestones
  • Forum — internal process, arbitration, EEOC/state agency, court, union grievance
  • Resolution docs — settlement, award, or decision documents (if any)

Output Sections

1. Executive Overview

2–3 sentences: nature of dispute, core claims, current status, immediate next step.

2. Parties and Roles

PartyRoleRelationshipCounsel/RepSource

3. Allegations Matrix

AllegationClaim TypeAlleged ConductDates/LocationsWitnessesPolicy/StatuteStatusSource

4. Responses and Defenses

PartyPositionAdmissionsDenialsAffirmative DefensesDisputed FactsSource

5. Procedural History

DateEventForum/ProcessOutcome/StatusNext DeadlineSource

6. Resolution / Outcome

TypeDateMonetary TermsNon-Monetary TermsConfidentialityAppeal StatusSource

Skip if no resolution exists.

7. Findings / Determinations

Decision-MakerFindingStandard AppliedScopeEffective DateSource

8. Outstanding Issues and Next Steps

  • Open factual disputes
  • Pending procedural steps
  • Required notices/approvals
  • Evidence gaps to close
  • Decision points for HR/Legal

9. Risk and Policy Impact

Risk AreaExposure LevelRationalePotential RemediesPolicy ImpactSource

10. Source Map

Fact/AssertionSource Doc IDPage/SectionConfidence

11. Gaps / Additional Information Needed

List missing documents, unclear facts, or unverified assertions.

Source Handling

  • Tag every factual assertion with a marker: [Doc-12].
  • Use quotation marks for direct quotes; cite document and page/section.
  • If a fact is disputed, state both positions and label Disputed.

Pitfalls and Checks

  • Neutrality — never assess credibility or intent; state legal conclusions only if formally determined by a court, arbitrator, or agency.
  • Policy versions — identify the governing policy version and effective date when cited.
  • Privilege — note confidentiality restrictions; do not reproduce sensitive material beyond necessity.
  • Jurisdiction — if unclear or non-U.S., flag explicitly and adjust labels; mark uncertain citations [VERIFY].
  • Retaliation / preservation — highlight anti-retaliation and document-preservation obligations when implicated.
  • Length — target 2–5 pages for complex matters; keep scannable.
Skills enregistrées