anthropics/claude-for-legal1 file

Chronology

Build or update a chronology from declared document sources and uploads — dated events extracted, de-duped, and tagged by significance per the matter theory. Use when the user asks to build a chronology or timeline from a production or matter file, says "chron from the production" or "what happened when", or needs a working, statement-of-facts, or witness-specific timeline.

Specification
Skill ID
anthropics/claude-for-legal/chronology
Publisher
anthropics
Repository
claude-for-legal
Installs
0
Files
1
Synced
Sep 23, 2026
How to use it

Open any RiverX project, open the Skills panel in the chat, and search for this identifier. The files are fetched from the source repository at install time.

anthropics/claude-for-legal/chronologyInstalls these files
  • SKILL.md

What this skill tells the agent

/chronology

  1. Load ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/[slug]/matter.md → theory, pivot fact, key facts.
  2. Load ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md → Document storage sources, default matter folder pattern.
  3. Follow the workflow and reference below.
  4. Identify sources in order: user-provided paths this session, default matter folder, declared sources from ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md.
  5. For readable sources: extract dated events. For unreachable sources: note in Gaps.
  6. De-dupe, merge with sources list per event.
  7. Tag significance (🔴/🟡/⚪) per matter theory.
  8. Write ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/[slug]/chronology.md (or format variant per flag).
  9. If prior version exists: version number increments, diff summary presented to user.
  10. Confirm before finalizing: "Here's what I built. Scan the 🔴 entries — anything I miscalled?"

Chronology

Disclosed-document use restrictions

Before working with a set of litigation documents, ask: "Were any of these documents obtained through disclosure or discovery in legal proceedings?" If yes:

  • England & Wales (CPR 31.22): Documents obtained through disclosure are subject to the implied undertaking — you may only use them for the purpose of the proceedings in which they were disclosed, unless the court grants permission, the disclosing party consents, or the document has been read in open court. Using them for a different matter, a different claim, or a commercial purpose without permission is a contempt.
  • US: Protective orders and Rule 26(c) may impose similar restrictions. Check the order.
  • Other jurisdictions: Similar restrictions commonly apply. Check the local rule.

Confirm: "This use is within the proceedings in which the documents were disclosed, or I have permission / consent, or the documents are now public." If not confirmed, flag it: "⚠️ Disclosed documents may have use restrictions. Confirm this use is permitted before proceeding."

Purpose

Facts happen in order. The chronology is the spine every narrative hangs on — the statement of facts in a brief, reserve memos, settlement memos, depo prep, witness prep. Building a chron by hand is slow; AI is good at structured extraction. The catch: garbage-in, garbage-out. This skill pulls from the sources the configuration declares and from whatever the user uploads.

Modes

This skill serves two practice settings. Pick a default from the user's ## Role in the plugin's configuration CLAUDE.md; the user can override per-run with a flag.

  • `--matter` mode (default for in-house litigation counsel). Matter-history-focused. Reads the matter's case theory and key facts from matter.md, pulls from declared document-storage sources (Google Drive, SharePoint, Gmail, iManage, CLM — whatever the ## Landscape section of CLAUDE.md declares), and treats history.md as the running internal log (decisions, holds, reserve memos — intentionally not in the chronology). Output is matter-centric: what happened across the dispute, tagged for advocacy use.
  • `--documents` mode (default for firm associate / paralegal). Production-document-focused. Reads the case theory from the configuration, then extracts from an eDiscovery export, a custodial file set, or a Bates-numbered production. Output is production-centric: what the documents show, with Bates citations, tagged per the case theory.

Both modes converge on the same output structure (timeline, 🔴/🟡/⚪ significance tags, gaps, SoF variant). The difference is the source profile and the significance frame.

If ## Role is solo or other, default to --matter but mention both modes on the first run and let the user pick.

Side framing (significance tags)

The same event is significant in different ways depending on whether the practitioner is proving a claim or disproving it. Read ## Side in the practice profile (and the per-matter posture if the matter overrides the default):

  • Plaintiff (offensive framing) — 🔴 marks events that establish elements of the claim (liability, causation, damages, notice), close gaps the defense will try to open, or start statute-of-limitations clocks in the plaintiff's favor. 🟡 marks events that support the claim but are subject to impeachment. ⚪ is background context.
  • Defense (defensive framing) — 🔴 marks events that break elements of the claim (failure of causation, notice, reliance), open statute-of-limitations or jurisdictional defenses, or support affirmative defenses (release, waiver, assumption of risk, comparative fault). 🟡 marks events that undermine the plaintiff's narrative. ⚪ is background.
  • Both / varies — ask the user per-chronology which side's framing to apply for significance tags. The underlying timeline is side-neutral; only the significance read changes.

Note the applied framing at the top of the output: Significance tags applied from [plaintiff / defense] perspective. When producing a Statement of Facts variant, use the side default unless the user specifies otherwise.

Load context

Common:

  • Plugin configuration CLAUDE.md → case theory context (in-house: ## Landscape for document sources; firm associate: ## Case theory and ## Document review for platform + custodians), ## Outputs for the work-product header, ## Decision posture for the privilege-flagging rule.
  • Prior chronology.md for this matter, if it exists.
  • Any files the user uploads or paths they provide in-session.

--matter mode also reads:

  • ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/[slug]/matter.md → case theory, key facts, pivot fact (for significance tagging), key dates.
  • Default matter folder pattern from CLAUDE.md → where docs for this slug live.

--documents mode also reads:

  • eDiscovery platform metadata if a connector is available (Everlaw, Relativity, DISCO, Aurora) — by custodian + date range.
  • Bates-range manifest or production index if the user points at one.

Conflicts gate — unbypassable (`--matter` mode). Before building the chronology, check ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/_log.yaml for the matter slug. 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 build a chronology 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 and writes the _log.yaml row this skill reads from. --documents mode (running against an ad-hoc document set without a matter slug) is exempt from the gate, but its outputs should be treated as pre-matter research and not filed as if matter work product.

Workflow

Step 0: Privilege gate (runs first, every time)

Chronology work pulls from documents. Documents are often privileged (attorney-client, work product, common interest, joint defense) — in-house matter files often are by default; eDiscovery productions, especially rolling productions or common-interest productions, often contain privileged or unreviewed material. Extracting content from a privileged document into a chronology that later gets shared can risk waiver, depending on who receives it and under what doctrine (common-interest, joint-defense, Kovel, and work-product protections may apply). Waiver analysis is fact-specific — get counsel sign-off before distributing.

The skill will not extract until the user picks a privilege posture:

Before I extract: how have the sources been privilege-screened? - A. All sources cleared — you've already screened these. I extract without privilege flags. Output is discovery-ready posture; still marked work product.

Use this skill in a project

Open any RiverX project, search the Skills panel for anthropics/claude-for-legal/chronology, and install it in one click.

Use this skill