Official agent skill

Demand Draft

by anthropics in anthropics/claude-for-legal

Draft a demand letter from a completed intake, gated on a privilege / FRE 408 / waiver / admission checklist, with a .docx output, post-send checklist, and an offer to create a matter.

OfficialApache-2.0Auto-check passedDocuments & Office

Install Demand Draft

skills CLI
$ npx skills add anthropics/claude-for-legal --skill demand-draft -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install anthropics/claude-for-legal demand-draft --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/anthropics/claude-for-legal.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/litigation-legal/skills/demand-draft .claude/skills/demand-draft && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
demand-draft
GitHub stars
9.6k
Used in
1 other repo
Token cost
~6.5k tokens
SKILL.md length
2,804 words
Files
1
Skills in repo
147
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
Apache-2.0

At a glance

Draft a demand letter from a completed intake, gated on a privilege / FRE 408 / waiver / admission checklist, with a .docx output, post-send checklist, and an offer to create a matter.

  • Works in 2 steps: Seed doc → Soft templates (used only when no seed…
  • The user says draft the demand
  • SKILL.md covers Purpose, Record fidelity — quotes and…, Candor about weak arguments and Echo vs repeat, plus 11 more sections
  • Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md

What it does

Demand Draft is an agent skill from anthropics/claude-for-legal, published by the product's own GitHub organization. Draft a demand letter from a completed intake, gated on a privilege / FRE 408 / waiver / admission checklist, with a .docx output, post-send checklist, and an offer to create a matter. Use when the user says "draft the demand", "write the [type] letter", or has a finished demand intake ready to turn into a sendable draft.

Its SKILL.md is about 6.5k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. It is a single SKILL.md file with no bundled scripts.

It sits in Documents & Office, covering Dispute resolution, Word documents and Legal research. It works with Microsoft Word. The repository describes itself as: A suite of plugins for legal workflows. The licence is Apache-2.0.

When your agent uses it

  • The user says draft the demand
  • Write the [type] letter
  • Has a finished demand intake ready to turn into a sendable draft

Example prompts

  • “draft the demand”
  • “write the [type] letter”
  • “/demand-draft”

Workflow steps

2 steps, taken from the step headings in SKILL.md.

  1. Seed doc
  2. Soft templates (used only when no seed doc)

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 4a6c651. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    No scripts in the folder and no shell commands in SKILL.md (its code samples are markdown).

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md.

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Demand Draft loads about 6.5k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 84 tokens; SKILL.md has 2,804 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~84
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~6.5k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from anthropics/claude-for-legal at commit 4a6c651, republished under its Apache-2.0 licence (© anthropics). 2,804 words, ~6,471 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/demand-draft/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).
name
demand-draft
description
Draft a demand letter from a completed intake, gated on a privilege / FRE 408 / waiver / admission checklist, with a .docx output, post-send checklist, and an offer to create a matter. Use when the user says "draft the demand", "write the [type] letter", or has a finished demand intake ready to turn into a sendable draft.
argument-hint
[slug] [--skip-gate] [--version=N]

/demand-draft

  1. Load ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/demand-letters/[slug]/intake.md. Refuse if missing or strategic block empty (for material demands).
  2. Load ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md → demand-letter practice, house style, seed-doc table.
  3. Follow the workflow and reference below.
  4. Run the pre-draft gate: privilege filter, admission risk, accord-and-satisfaction, FRE 408 posture, waiver scan, tone, factual accuracy. Do not proceed until each is engaged.
  5. Template select: seed doc if provided in ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md; else soft template for the demand type.
  6. Draft in-chat for review. Iterate until user approves.
  7. Write ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/demand-letters/[slug]/draft-v[N].docx using the docx skill.
  8. Write ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/demand-letters/[slug]/checklist.md (post-send checklist).
  9. Assess materiality per heuristic; offer to create a matter. If yes: hand off to matter-intake with pre-populated fields.

Demand Draft

Purpose

Take a completed intake and produce a sendable draft. Most of the value is in refusing to draft until privilege, waiver, admission, and settlement-communication posture have been consciously addressed — the failure mode is a letter that waives privilege or constitutes an admission because no one paused to check.

Record fidelity — quotes and pinpoints

Demand letters are advocacy, and every quoted line from a contract, an email, or a prior communication becomes an assertion the counterparty will test. Canonical statement in the plugin's CLAUDE.md shared guardrails; repeated here.

Verbatim quotes must be verbatim. Never put quotation marks around words attributed to the counterparty, their counsel, a witness, or any document unless you have the exact passage in front of you. When you want to characterize without the exact words:

  • Paraphrase without quotation marks, with a placeholder: "Your [date] email stated X [verify exact quote — email cite pending]."
  • Never fill the gap. A misquoted contract provision in a demand letter is the fastest way to lose credibility with opposing counsel on the first round.
  • Every [verify exact quote] must be flagged in the reviewer note before the letter leaves.

Pinpoint cites must support the whole proposition. If the demand asserts "Section 4.2 requires payment within 30 days upon invoice receipt," the cited section must cover the obligation AND the trigger AND the window. If it only covers one, split the cite (e.g., "Section 4.2 (payment obligation); Section 4.3 (30-day window)") or narrow the proposition. A contract cite that backs part of the demand is how the counterparty replies with the full text and flips the posture.

Candor about weak arguments

When the law or the record is against a point, don't dress it up as solid. When an argument in the demand is weak — the contract language is ambiguous, the authority cuts the other way, the damages theory is a stretch — flag it for the sender:

"The [claim / theory] here is weak because [authority / fact]. Options: (a) press it and frame as [alternative framing], (b) drop it and rely on [stronger claim], (c) keep it as a hook but hedge the language. [review — strategic call]."

A demand letter that over-asserts gets a response that catalogs every overreach, shifts leverage, and burns the next round. The strongest demand letter is the one that concedes what's weak so the counterparty can't.

Echo vs repeat

If the matter has prior correspondence, echo the key terms — the same characterization of the breach, the same framing of the core obligation, the same name for the transaction. Don't lift whole sentences. A demand letter that reads like a copy-paste of the prior one signals that nothing has changed; the new letter should advance the posture (new facts, new deadline, new consequence), not restate it.

External deliverable: the drafted demand letter is sent to counterparty. Do NOT include a PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT — PREPARED AT THE DIRECTION OF COUNSEL header on the outgoing letter. The post-send checklist and the intake file are internal work product and do carry the header.

Side context

Drafting a demand letter is inherently an assertion — the sender is making a claim. Read ## Side in the practice profile:

  • Plaintiff / claimant (default for this skill): demand-draft aligns with the posture. The letter is the claim. Tone, consequence language, and relief demanded all flow from the plaintiff-side playbook.
  • Defense / respondent: demand-drafts are less common from defense but do happen — a defense practitioner may send a counter-demand, a demand for contribution, or a demand letter in an unrelated matter. Confirm before drafting: "You said defense is your default. Is this matter plaintiff-posture for you (you're asserting a claim), or is this a different posture?"
  • Both / varies: ask per-draft which posture applies. The draft's tone and default signer may differ.

For in-house defense practitioners who receive demand letters more than they send them, route to demand-received instead — that skill handles the inbound-triage case.

Posture for this matter

Before the pre-draft gate, confirm the matter-level posture. Demand-letter tone and terms are case-by-case, not a practice default. Confirm with the user (reading the intake's ## Posture section if present; asking if not):

Posture for this matter. Demand-letter tone and terms are case-by-case, not a practice default. Ask:

  • Tone: measured / assertive / aggressive? (depends on the relationship, the amount, and whether litigation is likely)
  • Response window: what's reasonable given the claim? (14 days is common for payment demands; 30 days for cure; 7 days for cease-and-desist — but the contract or protocol may set it)
  • Marking: does this need a "without prejudice" or "without prejudice save as to costs" marking? (settlement communications do; assertions of claim often don't; jurisdiction matters — ask if unsure)
  • Signer: you, the client, the GC, instructed solicitor/counsel? Don't assume. Read the prior demand correspondence in the matter file if there is any — it establishes the register.

The answers drive tone verb choice, the consequence language, the Without prejudice header (or its absence), the signature block, and the compliance deadline. A posture that wasn't captured in intake gets captured here — do not fall back to a practice-level default.

Jurisdiction assumption

This draft assumes the jurisdiction identified in the intake and the forum's applicable settlement-communication rule (FRE 408 in federal, the state equivalent otherwise). Legal rules, deadlines, fee-shifting, and statutory hooks vary materially by jurisdiction. If the underlying facts touch a different forum, a different counterparty's home state, or a choice-of-law question, the draft may not apply as written — confirm before sending.

Load context

  • ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/demand-letters/[slug]/intake.md — required; refuse to proceed if missing
  • ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md → Demand-letter practice (seed-doc paths, insurance-tender timing, materiality threshold for matter creation), house style (privilege markings, outside counsel directive format for tone reference). Tone, compliance period, marking, and signer come from ## Posture for this matter — they are matter-level, not practice-level.
  • ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/_log.yaml — to check for existing related matters (same counterparty) and offer cross-link
Strategic-block skipped handling

If the intake has strategic_block: skipped or partial, prompt the user before running the pre-draft gate:

The intake skipped [all / some] of the strategic block (leverage, BATNA, tone, privilege filters). Drafting now will produce a usable letter but the strategic sections will be generic and flagged with [SME VERIFY].

  • Complete strategic block now — pause, return to /demand-intake [slug] --resume-strategic
  • Proceed anyway — continue to pre-draft gate; downstream sections flagged

If "proceed anyway," every section of the draft that depends on a skipped strategic question gets [SME VERIFY: [specific question]] inline.

Flags

  • --skip-gate → bypass the pre-draft checklist. Available but logged; use only when the checklist was run separately and documented.
  • --version=N → draft as draft-vN.docx (default: next version number)

The pre-draft gate

This runs before any drafting. If the user doesn't engage with it, stop.

PRE-DRAFT CHECKLIST — [slug]

1. Privilege filter
   Per intake privilege filters: [list]
   Confirm: none of these will appear in the draft?  [y/n]

2. Admission risk
   Per intake admission risk: [list]
   For each, is the phrasing controlled or removed?  [y/n per item]

3. Accord-and-satisfaction
   Per intake: [flagged risk, if any]
   Does the demand inadvertently satisfy or accept a separate claim?  [y/n]

4. Settlement-communication posture
   Research the settlement-communication protections applicable in the forum
   (FRE 408 in federal, the state equivalent otherwise). Note that protection
   attaches from conduct and context, not merely from labeling the communication.
   Intake says: [protected / not protected / case-by-case]
   Draft will [include / omit] settlement-communication markers, and will be
   structured so the substance — not just the label — supports the posture.
   Confirm.

5. Privilege waiver scan
   Will any sentence in the draft reveal the substance of our internal legal analysis (not just the conclusion)?  [y/n]
   If yes, rephrase before drafting.

6. Tone posture
   Intake says: [relationship-preserving / measured / scorched-earth]
   This will drive verb choice, framing, and consequence language. Confirm.

7. Factual accuracy
   Every fact in the draft must be verified. Not "probably true" — verified. List any facts that are not yet verified, and they will be flagged [VERIFY: ___] inline.

Only proceed when the user has engaged with each item. A blank-acknowledged checklist is worse than no checklist.

Template selection

Step 1: Seed doc

Check ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md → Demand-letter practice → seed-doc table for the intake's demand type.

  • Seed doc provided: read it. Match structure, tone, signature block, privilege markings, typical section ordering. The seed doc is the template.
  • No seed doc: use the soft template below for the demand type.
Step 2: Soft templates (used only when no seed doc)

Each is a skeleton — headings and expected content. Deviate when the facts require.

Payment demand skeleton:

  1. Parties and relationship context (1 paragraph)
  2. Facts — the obligation and its source (contract § / invoice / order), dates
  3. The default — what's owed, when due, what happened (or didn't)
  4. Demand — specific amount, deadline, method of payment
  5. Consequences — referral to counsel, interest, fees, collections, litigation
  6. Preservation notice (if relevant)
  7. Signature block

Breach / cure notice skeleton:

  1. Parties and agreement (identify the contract — effective date, parties)
  2. The obligation alleged breached — contract section, plain language
  3. The breach — specific facts, dates, evidence available
  4. Cure — what specifically would cure; cure period (from contract or reasonable)
  5. Consequences of failure to cure — termination, damages, specific remedies in the contract
  6. Preservation of rights
  7. Signature block

Cease & desist skeleton:

  1. Parties and our rights (trademark/copyright/contract/common law — identify the right)
  2. The infringement / violation — specific acts, dates, evidence
  3. Demand — cease immediately, remove, account for past use, confirm compliance in writing
  4. Compliance deadline
  5. Consequences of non-compliance — litigation, injunctive relief, statutory damages if applicable, fees
  6. Preservation demand (documents, metadata, systems related to the alleged conduct)
  7. Signature block

Employment separation demand skeleton:

  1. Parties and relationship context (ex-employee, dates of employment)
  2. The obligation — post-employment obligations breached (confidentiality, non-solicit, non-compete, IP assignment); cite the agreement
  3. The specific conduct alleged
  4. Demand — cease, return property/IP, confirm compliance, non-disparagement reinforcement if applicable
  5. Consequences — litigation, injunctive relief, fee-shifting if in the agreement
  6. Offer of informal resolution (if strategically appropriate)
  7. Preservation demand
  8. Signature block

Preservation demand skeleton:

  1. Parties and context — what dispute is anticipated
  2. Scope — categories of documents, data, systems, communications
  3. Custodians — named individuals expected to have relevant material
  4. Date range
  5. Affirmative preservation obligation — suspend auto-delete, preserve metadata, preserve devices
  6. Consequences of spoliation — adverse inference, sanctions, fee-shifting
  7. Acknowledgment request
  8. Signature block
Show full SKILL.md (1,198 more words)Show less

Drafting rules

  1. Installment-contract default for multi-lot goods disputes. For any breach-of-contract demand involving a multi-delivery goods contract under the U.C.C. (multiple shipments, lots, or deliveries over time), default to the installment-contract framework of U.C.C. § 2-612 — "substantial impairment of the value of the installment" — rather than § 2-601's perfect-tender rule or § 2-711's single-delivery buyer's-remedies framework.

Perfect tender under § 2-601 applies cleanly to single-delivery goods contracts. It does NOT transfer cleanly to installment contracts, where § 2-612 modifies the rule: a buyer can reject a nonconforming installment only when the nonconformity substantially impairs the value of that installment and cannot be cured; and can treat the whole contract as breached only when the nonconformity substantially impairs the value of the whole contract.

When drafting the demand letter for a multi-lot goods breach:

  • Cite [CITE: U.C.C. § 2-612 — installment contracts; substantial impairment of the installment] as the primary framework, not § 2-601.
  • Cite § 2-711 and § 2-712 (cover) as remedies flowing from breach, but state the breach standard in § 2-612 terms.
  • Flag for the signer in a [SIGNER NOTE:] block above the draft: "This letter is drafted under U.C.C. § 2-612 (installment contracts), not § 2-601 (perfect tender). The two have materially different breach standards. Confirm the contract's delivery structure supports installment-contract characterization before sending."
  • If the contract's delivery structure is unclear from the intake (e.g., the intake says "three lots delivered" but doesn't confirm whether the contract called for separate lot deliveries or a single shipment split for convenience), flag it [VERIFY: is this an installment contract under § 2-612, or a single-delivery contract split into lots by shipping convenience?] — do not silently assert § 2-612 applies.

Single-delivery breach: use § 2-601 perfect-tender framing. Installment: use § 2-612. Do not conflate them.

  1. Specificity over adjectives. "On March 14, 2026, you sent X" beats "You repeatedly and improperly sent X." Adjectives are the draftsperson's tell that the facts are thin.

  2. Facts traceable to sources. Every factual assertion maps to a document, date, or witness. If not verifiable yet: [VERIFY: specific claim].

  3. Citations as placeholders. [CITE: statute/section/case] wherever legal authority goes. Do not invent citations. If the user provided authorities in the intake, use them faithfully.

  4. Consequence language matches tone posture.

    • relationship-preserving: "We hope to resolve this without further action."
    • measured: "If not cured within [N] days, we will consider our options, including litigation."
    • scorched-earth: "Failure to cure within [N] days will result in immediate legal action, including [specific relief]."
  5. Inline alternative phrasings. Where tone could shift, the draft includes a compact alternative. Format:

    The attached invoice of $X remains unpaid. [or more assertive: You have failed to pay the attached invoice of $X, due [date].]

  6. No settlement discussion on the record unless intended. If the intake flagged the communication as not carrying settlement-communication protection in the forum, the draft does not include any offer to compromise, any "without prejudice" framing, or any language that could be characterized as a settlement communication. Remember that protection attaches from conduct and context; labeling alone is not a cure.

  7. Privilege markings per house style. Apply ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md privilege conventions exactly.

Output

Use the docx skill to produce a letter-formatted .docx:

  • Letterhead / sender address block
  • Date
  • Recipient address block
  • Re: line (concise; does not reveal privileged strategy)
  • Salutation
  • Body (per template + drafting rules)
  • Closing
  • Signature block per intake
In-chat review

Show the draft as readable plain text for the user to review and request edits. Iterate before writing the final .docx. Once approved, write to disk.

Send gate (closing note on the draft)

Append the following, set apart from the body, to the in-chat presentation and to any internal preview — it is a reviewer-facing note, not letter text, and is stripped before the letter goes out:

This is a draft demand letter for attorney review, not a letter ready to send. Sending it may constitute an attorney communication, create FRE 408 (or state-equivalent) implications, and start the clock on disputes, counterclaims, and statutes. A licensed attorney reviews, edits, and takes professional responsibility before sending. Do not send this draft unreviewed.

Citation verification

Every [CITE:___] placeholder — and any citation pulled from the intake or the seed doc — is unverified until a human runs it through a citator. Before sending, run a verification pass: check each case, statute, and regulation against a legal research tool (Westlaw, CourtListener, Trellis, Descrybe, or your firm's platform) for accuracy, good law status, and subsequent history. Fabricated or misquoted citations in sent demand letters and filed documents have resulted in sanctions.

Source attribution. Tag every citation in the draft with where it came from: [Westlaw], [CourtListener], [Trellis], [Descrybe], or the specific MCP tool name for citations retrieved via a legal research connector; [web search — verify] for citations surfaced by web search; [model knowledge — verify] for citations the model recalled from training data; [user provided] for citations supplied in the intake or seed doc. Citations tagged verify carry higher fabrication risk than tool-retrieved citations and should be checked first. Never strip or collapse the tags — they are the signer's fastest signal about which citations to verify before the letter goes out.

No silent supplement. If a research query to the configured legal research tool (Westlaw, CourtListener, Trellis, Descrybe, or firm platform) returns few or no results for an authority the draft needs, report what was found and stop. Do NOT fill the gap from web search or model knowledge without asking. Say: "The search returned [N] results from [tool]. Coverage appears thin for [issue]. Options: (1) broaden the search query, (2) try a different research tool, (3) search the web — results will be tagged [web search — verify] and should be checked against a primary source before relying, or (4) leave the [CITE:___] placeholder and stop here. Which would you like?" A lawyer decides whether to accept lower-confidence sources; the skill does not decide for them.

markdown
[WORK-PRODUCT HEADER — per plugin config ## Outputs — differs by role; see `## Who's using this`. This header applies to the internal checklist file; the outgoing letter does NOT carry it.]

# Post-Send Checklist — [slug]

**Draft version sent:** [v1 / v2 / etc.]
**Sent date:** [YYYY-MM-DD — filled in after send]
**Signer:** [name]

## Pre-send (before the letter goes out)

- [ ] Final read-through by signer
- [ ] Factual accuracy: all [VERIFY] flags resolved
- [ ] Citations: all [CITE] placeholders filled and run through a citator (verify it is good law)d (if live law cited)
- [ ] Privilege markings applied per house style — note: this is an external deliverable; do not include the `PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT` header in the version sent to counterparty
- [ ] Settlement-communication markers [present / absent] as intake specified, and substance aligns with posture
- [ ] Internal copies cleared (per intake distribution list)
- [ ] Insurance tender sent (if required per house practice)
- [ ] Conflicts confirmed (if not yet cleared)

**Before the letter is sent (the consequential act):** Read `## Who's using this` in `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md`. If the Role is Non-lawyer:

> Sending this demand letter has legal consequences — it creates a record, can trigger statutes and counterclaims, and may waive privileges or constitute admissions. Have you reviewed this with an attorney? If yes, proceed. If no, here's a brief to bring to them:
>
> [Generate a 1-page summary: counterparty and dispute, the demand and deadline, tone posture, FRE 408 / settlement-communication status, privilege and admission risks flagged in the pre-draft gate, what could go wrong, what to ask the attorney before sending.]
>
> If you need to find a licensed attorney, solicitor, barrister, or other authorised legal professional in your jurisdiction: your professional regulator's referral service is the fastest starting point (state bar in the US, SRA/Bar Standards Board in England & Wales, Law Society in Scotland/NI/Ireland/Canada/Australia, or your jurisdiction's equivalent).

Do not mark as sent — do not execute the Send mechanics below — without an explicit yes.

## Send mechanics

- [ ] Delivery method executed: [certified / email / both]
- [ ] Proof of delivery retained (certified receipt, email read-receipt, courier confirmation)
- [ ] Copies sent per distribution list

## After send

- [ ] Compliance deadline calendared: [YYYY-MM-DD]
- [ ] Escalation plan if no response: [next step + date]
- [ ] Follow-up check-in calendared: [date — typically deadline + 2 business days]
- [ ] Matter created in `_log.yaml`: [yes / no — see materiality below]

## Materiality call

**Heuristic says:** [material / immaterial]
**Reason:** [demand type / exposure / counterparty type]
**Your call:** [material → create matter] [immaterial → demand-letters record only]

If material: `/litigation-legal:matter-intake` with `source: demand-letter` pre-populated from this intake.
Matter auto-creation offer

After drafting and writing the checklist, assess materiality per heuristic:

  • Default yes if ANY of:
    • Demand type is cease-desist, breach-cure, employment-separation, or preservation
    • Desired outcome $$ ≥ ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md medium-severity band
    • Counterparty is a customer, competitor, or frequent adversary per landscape
  • Default no otherwise

Present the call:

Materiality heuristic: [result]. [One-sentence reason.] Create a tracked matter in ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/_log.yaml? (default: [yes/no])

If user accepts: trigger matter-intake with fields pre-populated from the intake (counterparty, type, jurisdiction, source: demand-letter, initial theory, internal stakeholders). User reviews pre-filled fields and confirms.

If user declines: update intake status: drafted (later sent when user confirms). The record stays in ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/demand-letters/ only.

Versioning

Never overwrite a draft that has been sent. If revising after send, draft-v2.docx. The sent-version history is itself the record of what the counterparty received.

What this skill does not do

  • Send the letter. Drafting only. The user sends.
  • Research citations. [CITE:___] placeholders stay as placeholders. If the user provided authorities in the intake, they're used; otherwise, blanks. Inventing cites is malpractice exposure.
  • Bypass the pre-draft gate. Even with --skip-gate, the skill notes in the draft file that the gate was skipped and why.
  • Rewrite the intake. If the intake is thin, send the user back to demand-intake. The draft is only as good as what it reads from.
  • Decide materiality. The heuristic offers a default; the user's call is the record.

© anthropics, Apache-2.0. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

Just SKILL.md in litigation-legal/skills/demand-draft of anthropics/claude-for-legal.

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 4a6c651

Used in 1 other repository

We found 1 copy of this SKILL.md (exact, near-identical or edited) in other folders, from 1 other GitHub owner. This page covers the copy in anthropics/claude-for-legal, which our catalogue first saw on October 7, 2026.

Compare with similar skills

Demand Draft next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Demand Draft compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Demand Draft this skillanthropics/claude-for-legal9.6k1 repos~6.5kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Note De Synthese Crfpalawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills836—~7.3kAutomated safety check: PassCustom licence
Legal Due Diligenceinfometa/workbuddyskills344—~2kAutomated safety check: PassNone
Biomedical PaperLeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills2.2k—~3.3kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Paper2patent7toCR/paper2patent649—~2.5kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Adeu Redliningdealfluence/adeu166—~2.4kAutomated safety check: PassMIT

Similar skills

  • Note De Synthese Crfpa

    lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills

    Génération de sujets d'entraînement complets pour l'épreuve de NOTE DE SYNTHÈSE (5 heures, coefficient 3) de l'examen d'accès au CRFPA : choix du sujet, dossier documentaire de 16 à 20 documents…

    836 GitHub stars~7.3k tokensUpdated 5 days ago
    Documents & OfficeAuto-check passed
  • Legal Due Diligence

    infometa/workbuddyskills

    本技能用于对中国大陆企业开展法律尽职调查,以及起草、生成、修改、完善、审查或复核法律尽职调查报告;支持投融资、并购、常年法律顾问合规体检、供应商或合作方、融资方、上市前专项及其他专项尽调。

    344 GitHub stars~2k tokensUpdated today
    Legal & ComplianceAuto-check passed
  • Biomedical Paper

    LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills

    AI-powered biomedical manuscript generation with docx output.

    2.2k GitHub stars~3.3k tokensUpdated 2 mo ago
    Documents & OfficeAuto-check passed
  • Paper2patent

    7toCR/paper2patent

    Turn an academic paper (PDF, LaTeX, pasted text, thesis chapter or technical disclosure) into a Chinese invention patent application draft — 说明书摘要、摘要附图、权利要求书、说明书、说明书附图 — delivered as DOCX/PDF with…

    649 GitHub stars~2.5k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Documents & OfficeAuto-check passed
  • Adeu Redlining

    dealfluence/adeu

    A skill your agent uses when reviewing, editing, redlining, or negotiating an existing Microsoft Word document (.docx) — including proposing edits as tracked changes, accepting or rejecting existing…

    166 GitHub stars~2.4k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Documents & OfficeAuto-check passed
  • Yc SaaS Drafter

    lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills

    Drafts a customized Customer Agreement starting from the Y Combinator standard form SaaS template.

    836 GitHub stars~2.4k tokensUpdated 5 days ago
    Documents & OfficeAuto-check passed

More from anthropics/claude-for-legal

All 147 skills in this repo
  • Legal Clinic Client Intake

    anthropics/claude-for-legal

    Official

    Structures a legal clinic client intake interview and produces a case summary with cross-area issue spotting, conflict flags and triage classification.

    9.6k GitHub starsUsed in 3 repos~3.2k tokens
    Auto-check passed
  • Supervisor Review Queue

    anthropics/claude-for-legal

    Official

    Holds student work in a queue for a legal clinic professor to approve, edit-then-approve or return before anything reaches clients or courts.

    9.6k GitHub starsUsed in 3 repos~1.1k tokens
    Auto-check passed
  • Tabular Document Review

    anthropics/claude-for-legal

    Official

    Builds a review grid with one row per document and one column per data point, each cell cited to a verbatim quote, built for M&A diligence and other batch reviews.

    9.6k GitHub starsUsed in 3 repos~4.3k tokens
    Auto-check passed
  • Product Launch Legal Review

    anthropics/claude-for-legal

    Official

    Runs a category-by-category legal review of a product launch from a PRD or tracker ticket, calibrated to your team's framework, and writes a review memo in house format.

    9.6k GitHub starsUsed in 2 repos~5k tokens
    Auto-check passed
  • Legal Skills Registry Browser

    anthropics/claude-for-legal

    Official

    Searches watched registries for community legal skills, shows matches with descriptions and offers the full SKILL.md before anything is installed.

    9.6k GitHub starsUsed in 2 repos~620 tokens
    Auto-check passed
  • Contract Renewal Tracker

    anthropics/claude-for-legal

    Official

    Shows which contracts renew soon and when notice must be sent by, working from a maintained renewal register, and warns about missed cancellation windows.

    9.6k GitHub starsUsed in 2 repos~3.1k tokens
    Auto-check passed

Works with

Questions about Demand Draft

What does Demand Draft do?

Draft a demand letter from a completed intake, gated on a privilege / FRE 408 / waiver / admission checklist, with a .docx output, post-send checklist, and an offer to create a matter. Demand Draft is an agent skill from anthropics/claude-for-legal, published by the product's own GitHub organization.docx output, post-send checklist, and an offer to create a matter.

When should I use Demand Draft?

Demand Draft fits situations like: the user says draft the demand; write the [type] letter; has a finished demand intake ready to turn into a sendable draft.

How do I install Demand Draft in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add anthropics/claude-for-legal --skill demand-draft -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (litigation-legal/skills/demand-draft in anthropics/claude-for-legal) into .claude/skills/demand-draft in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Demand Draft in Codex?

Run `npx skills add anthropics/claude-for-legal --skill demand-draft -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (litigation-legal/skills/demand-draft in anthropics/claude-for-legal) into .agents/skills/demand-draft in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Demand Draft in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add anthropics/claude-for-legal --skill demand-draft -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/demand-draft, .gemini/skills/demand-draft, .github/skills/demand-draft and .opencode/skills/demand-draft in your project.

What does Demand Draft need to run?

SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Demand Draft is instructions for the agent only.

Does Demand Draft access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Any network use would come from the scripts or tools the agent runs. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Demand Draft safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does Demand Draft use?

Demand Draft is published under the Apache-2.0 licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Demand Draft use?

About 6.5k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 26k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.

What are the alternatives to Demand Draft?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Demand Draft: Note De Synthese Crfpa (lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills, 836 stars), Legal Due Diligence (infometa/workbuddyskills, 344 stars), Biomedical Paper (LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills, 2.2k stars) and Paper2patent (7toCR/paper2patent, 649 stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Demand Draft?

anthropics (a GitHub organization, an official publisher) maintains it in anthropics/claude-for-legal, which has 9,617 GitHub stars. The repository holds 147 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on September 29, 2026.

Source: anthropics/claude-for-legal on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.