/matter-briefing

1. Load ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md → risk calibration + relevant stakeholders.
2. Follow the workflow and reference below.
3. Read ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/[slug]/matter.md + ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/[slug]/history.md + log row from _log.yaml.
4. Produce briefing: current posture, what's changed since last update, next deadline, open questions, risk re-assessment check ("does the risk: field still reflect reality?").
5. Flag staleness: if last_updated > 30 days, say so.

Matter Briefing

Purpose

Give the counsel a clean read on one matter in the time it takes to walk to a conference room. Current posture, what's changed, what's next, what's worth reconsidering.

Load context

• ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/_log.yaml — structured row
• ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/[slug]/matter.md — narrative intake
• ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/[slug]/history.md — event log
• ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md — risk calibration (so "risk: high" means something specific, not generic)

Conflicts gate — unbypassable. Before briefing, check _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 briefing on a matter that hasn't been intaken — the conflicts check is the gate."

Input

Slug (required). If ambiguous or missing, ask the user to pick from a list of active matters.

The briefing

[WORK-PRODUCT HEADER — per plugin config ## Outputs — differs by role; see `## Who's using this`]

# [Matter Name] — Briefing as of [today]

**Status:** [status / stage]
**Risk:** [rating] ([severity] × [likelihood])
**Materiality:** [category]
**Outside counsel:** [firm — lead]
**Last updated:** [date] [flag ⚠️ STALE if >30d]
**Conflicts:** [status — flag ⚠️ if `pending` or `not-run`]

---

## One-paragraph summary

[Current posture. What are we doing and why. Name the pivot fact if one is captured.]

## What's changed recently

[Last 3-5 entries from history.md, most recent first. If history is thin, say so.]

## What's next

- **Immediate deadline:** [next_deadline + what it is]
- **Upcoming milestones:** [anything dated in matter.md or recent history]
- **Decisions pending:** [open questions flagged in matter.md]

## Exposure

[Range + any change since intake. If reserved, current reserve + whether recalibration is overdue.]

## Internal owners

[Who's looped in; whether anyone should be looped in and isn't]

## Risk re-assessment check

*A prompt, not an answer.*

- Does `risk: [rating]` still feel right, or has the case moved?
- Does `materiality: [category]` still match? (New facts might push toward reserve or disclosure.)
- Any new stakeholder the matter needs (e.g., CISO becomes relevant after a discovery development)?

## Open questions

[From matter.md and anything unresolved in history]

## For the conversation

[If user specified a purpose — "brief me before the call with outside counsel" — tailor the final section: questions to ask, decisions to get, updates to extract. If no purpose given, omit this section.]

Staleness

If last_updated > 30 days ago: flag at the top AND suggest running /litigation-legal:matter-update [slug] after the meeting to capture whatever's discussed.

Tone

This is not marketing. Say what's known; flag what's not. If a matter has thin history and was just opened, the briefing is short — and that's correct. Don't pad.

Close with the next-steps decision tree

…