New: 98,000+ skills indexed from GitHub repos with 100+ stars · every skill safety-checkedBrowse top skillsTop skills
Esc to closeBrowse all skills
Submit a skillBrowse skills
Submit a skillBrowse skills

Official agent skill

Demand Intake

by anthropics in anthropics/claude-for-legal

Pre-drafting context gathering for a demand letter — parties, facts, basis, leverage, BATNA, and privilege filters — written to a structured intake.md the demand-draft skill reads.

OfficialApache-2.0Auto-check passedLegal & Compliance

Install Demand Intake

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

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

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install anthropics/claude-for-legal demand-intake --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-intake .claude/skills/demand-intake && 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-intake
GitHub stars
9.6k
Used in
2 other repos
Token cost
~3.2k tokens
SKILL.md length
1,289 words
Files
1
Skills in repo
147
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
Apache-2.0

At a glance

Pre-drafting context gathering for a demand letter — parties, facts, basis, leverage, BATNA, and privilege filters — written to a structured intake.md the demand-draft skill reads.

  • Works in 6 steps: Load… → Follow the workflow and reference below. → Run the adaptive intake (core 8 always;… → …
  • The user wants to prep a demand letter
  • SKILL.md covers Purpose, Load context, Flags and The intake, plus 5 more sections
  • Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md

What it does

Demand Intake is an agent skill from anthropics/claude-for-legal, published by the product's own GitHub organization. Pre-drafting context gathering for a demand letter — parties, facts, basis, leverage, BATNA, and privilege filters — written to a structured intake.md the demand-draft skill reads. Use when the user wants to prep a demand letter, run intake before drafting, or capture context for a payment demand, breach/cure notice, cease-and-desist, employment separation, or preservation demand.

Its SKILL.md is about 3.2k 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 Legal & Compliance, covering Dispute resolution and Legal research. 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 wants to prep a demand letter
  • Run intake before drafting
  • Capture context for a payment demand
  • Breach/cure notice

Example prompts

  • “/demand-intake”

Workflow steps

6 steps, taken from the first numbered list in SKILL.md.

  1. Load ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md → demand-letter practice, landscape, risk calibration.
  2. Follow the workflow and reference below.
  3. Run the adaptive intake (core 8 always; strategic block if material or --full).
  4. Generate slug from title + counterparty + year-month.
  5. Write ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/demand-letters/[slug]/intake.md.
  6. Confirm with user: "Intake saved. Run /litigation-legal:demand-draft [slug] when ready."

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 yaml and 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 Intake loads about 3.2k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 99 tokens; SKILL.md has 1,289 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~99
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~3.2k

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). 1,289 words, ~3,194 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/demand-intake/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).
name
demand-intake
description
Pre-drafting context gathering for a demand letter — parties, facts, basis, leverage, BATNA, and privilege filters — written to a structured intake.md the demand-draft skill reads. Use when the user wants to prep a demand letter, run intake before drafting, or capture context for a payment demand, breach/cure notice, cease-and-desist, employment separation, or preservation demand.
argument-hint
[title] [--full]

/demand-intake

  1. Load ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md → demand-letter practice, landscape, risk calibration.
  2. Follow the workflow and reference below.
  3. Run the adaptive intake (core 8 always; strategic block if material or --full).
  4. Generate slug from title + counterparty + year-month.
  5. Write ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/demand-letters/[slug]/intake.md.
  6. Confirm with user: "Intake saved. Run /litigation-legal:demand-draft [slug] when ready."

Demand Intake

Purpose

The drafting is downstream. The value is in the pre-writing — forcing the questions a careless letter skips. Leverage, BATNA, downside tolerance, privilege filters, the actual audience. A demand letter sent without thinking about those is worse than no letter.

Load context

  • ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md → Demand-letter practice (insurance-tender timing, materiality threshold for matter creation, any seed-doc templates), landscape (counterparty type, repeat-adversary patterns), risk calibration (to pre-estimate materiality), house style. Tone, compliance period, marking, signer are NOT practice-level defaults — they are set per matter in the ## Posture for this matter step below.

Flags

  • --full → run the complete intake regardless of materiality heuristics (for counsel who wants thorough every time)

The intake

Posture for this matter (ask FIRST, before the core)

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.

Record the answers in the intake under a ## Posture section before ## Parties. These answers govern the rest of the intake and the downstream draft — do not fall back to a practice-level default if the user left any of them blank; ask again.

Core — always asked (8 questions)

1. Demand type payment | breach-cure | cease-desist | employment-separation | preservation | other

2. Parties

  • Sender: our company (and any specific entity if multi-entity)
  • Recipient: counterparty — name, entity, address
  • Recipient audience: who actually reads (GC? CEO? individual? in-house legal?)
  • Relationship: customer | vendor | ex-employee | competitor | third-party | other

3. Triggering event

  • What happened and when (dates matter — statute-of-limitations, notice periods)
  • Evidence available (contracts, emails, records, witnesses)

Seed doc opportunity: "If you can share the underlying contract, correspondence, or evidence, the draft will be materially sharper. Paths work."

4. Legal / contractual basis

  • Which provisions — specific contract sections if applicable
  • Governing law (jurisdiction, choice-of-law clause)
  • Statutes or rules relied on (placeholders OK — the draft will flag [CITE:___] anyway)

5. Desired outcome

  • Specific asks. Not "resolution" — payment of $X by date Y; cessation of specific activity Z; cure within N days; return of specific property.
  • If multiple asks, order them (primary vs. fallback)

6. Deadlines

  • External deadline driving this (SoL, ongoing harm window, business event)
  • Demand compliance deadline — how long we give the recipient. Use the response window captured in ## Posture for this matter above; do not fall back to a practice-level default.

7. Prior outreach

  • Has this been raised informally? When, by whom, in what form?
  • Any response so far?
  • Why is escalation to a demand letter happening now?

8. Distribution

  • Delivery method (ask; no practice-level default)
  • Signer — captured in ## Posture for this matter above
  • Copies — internal stakeholders, insurance carrier (if tendering pre-demand per practice-level tender-timing rule), counsel
Strategic — asked if material, or if --full

Materiality heuristic: ask the strategic block if any of the following are true.

  • Demand type is cease-desist, breach-cure, employment-separation, or preservation
  • Desired outcome dollar value ≥ the medium-severity band from ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md risk calibration
  • Counterparty is a customer, competitor, or frequent adversary per ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md landscape
  • User ran with --full

Explicit skip option. When the strategic block is triggered, the user can decline to answer it. Ask plainly:

This is a material demand by the heuristic. The strategic block (leverage, BATNA, tone, privilege filters) is where most of the pre-writing value lives. Skipping it produces a thinner draft.

  • Answer now — walk the strategic block (5-7 min)
  • Answer partial — walk the subset you feel prepared for
  • Skip — proceed to draft with only the core block; I'll flag strategic_block: skipped in the intake

If the user chooses Skip, the intake file records it:

yaml
strategic_block: skipped        # answered | partial | skipped
skipped_reason: string | null   # captured if user provided one

The draft skill honors the skip — pre-draft gate runs regardless, but sections that depend on strategic-block answers get [SME VERIFY: leverage/tone/privilege not captured in intake] markers. The /demand-draft command also prompts a second time, asking whether the user wants to complete the strategic block before drafting.

9. Leverage and BATNA

  • What gives us negotiating power (contractual rights, factual leverage, reputational, commercial)
  • What if they refuse — are we prepared to litigate? Go public? Accept a smaller outcome?
  • Their likely BATNA — what's their best alternative? (If they don't think we'll sue, the demand is weak.)
Show full SKILL.md (479 more words)Show less

10. Downside tolerance

  • Reputational exposure if this becomes public
  • Precedent risk — does this letter set a pattern that affects other matters?
  • Regulatory / disclosure implications (is this the kind of dispute that becomes a 10-Q item?)
  • Insurance implications — does sending without tendering waive coverage?

11. Tone posture

  • Already captured in ## Posture for this matter above. Here, probe the trade-off if the user chose a stronger tone than the facts seem to warrant, or a weaker tone than the facts seem to warrant.
  • Worth naming explicitly: aggressive tone burns the relationship. If you want to keep the business relationship but need to protect the legal position, measured is usually the right call.

12. Settlement-communication posture

  • Research the settlement-communication protections applicable in the forum (FRE 408 in federal, the state equivalent otherwise). Is this letter a settlement communication that should be protected? Or an assertion of rights that shouldn't be?
  • If protected: the draft will include the settlement-communication marker and will be structured so the substance (a discussion of compromise) — not just the label — supports the posture.
  • Protection attaches from conduct and context, not merely from labeling. The marker is a belt-and-suspenders choice.

13. Privilege filters

  • What's in our internal analysis that must NOT appear in the letter? (Facts we haven't verified, our doubts about our case, strategic reasoning, prior settlement discussions)
  • A single badly-worded sentence can waive privilege on related analysis. Be explicit about what stays out.

14. Admission and accord-and-satisfaction risk

  • Anything in the letter that the counterparty could later characterize as an admission of fact or liability?
  • Does this demand risk inadvertently satisfying (or purporting to accept) a separate claim? (Accord-and-satisfaction: cashing a check marked "payment in full" can end a disputed debt.)

Writing the intake

Slug

[type]-[counterparty-short]-[yyyy-mm]. Confirm uniqueness in ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/demand-letters/.

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

# Demand Intake: [title]

**Slug:** [slug]
**Demand type:** [type]
**Drafted by:** [counsel]
**Opened:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Status:** intake | ready-to-draft | drafted | sent | closed
**Strategic block:** answered | partial | skipped
**Skipped reason:** [if applicable]

---

## Posture

- **Tone:** [measured / assertive / aggressive — with one-line rationale tied to the relationship and the amount]
- **Response window:** [N days — tied to the claim / contract / protocol]
- **Marking:** [none / without prejudice / without prejudice save as to costs / other — with rationale]
- **Signer:** [name / role — you / client / GC / instructed counsel]

*This is the per-matter posture captured at intake. The draft skill reads from here.*

---

## Parties

- **Sender:** [our entity]
- **Recipient:** [counterparty, entity, address]
- **Recipient audience:** [who reads]
- **Relationship:** [type]

## Triggering event

[What happened, when, evidence]

## Legal / contractual basis

[Provisions, governing law, statutes]

## Desired outcome

[Specific asks in priority order]

## Deadlines

- **External:** [SoL, ongoing harm window]
- **Compliance:** [how long we give them]

## Prior outreach

[History, most recent first]

## Distribution

- **Delivery:** [method]
- **Signer:** [name/role]
- **Copies:** [list]

---

## Strategic (if applicable)

### Leverage & BATNA

[Our power, their likely response]

### Downside tolerance

[Reputational, precedent, regulatory, insurance]

### Tone posture

[relationship-preserving / measured / scorched-earth — with rationale]

### Settlement-communication posture

[Protected or not in the forum — with reasoning. Cite primary source per the applicable rule (FRE 408 or state equivalent).]

### Privilege filters

[What CANNOT appear in the draft]

### Admission / accord-and-satisfaction risk

[Specific risks flagged]

---

## Seed documents

| Doc | Path |
|---|---|
| [underlying contract] | [path or "not shared"] |
| [prior correspondence] | [path or "not shared"] |
| [evidence] | [path or "not shared"] |

---

## Materiality assessment

**Auto-heuristic says:** [material / immaterial — with reasoning]
**User call:** [material / immaterial / TBD at post-send]

Confirm before writing

Show the user the draft intake. Flag anything thin:

Here's the intake. I notice [thin spots]. Before I save, anything to add?

Handoff to drafting

End with:

Intake saved. When ready: /litigation-legal:demand-draft [slug]

Close with the next-steps decision tree

End with the next-steps decision tree per CLAUDE.md ## Outputs. Customize the options to what this skill just produced — the five default branches (draft the X, escalate, get more facts, watch and wait, something else) are a starting point, not a lock-in. The tree is the output; the lawyer picks.

What this skill does not do

  • Draft the letter. That's demand-draft — the two steps are intentionally separate so counsel can pause for business input, outside counsel consult, or insurance tender before drafting.
  • Decide whether to send the letter. Some intake sessions end with "actually, don't send — let's negotiate directly." That's a valid outcome; the intake record still has value.
  • Run the conflicts check. If the counterparty is a customer or known entity, flag that this should clear conflicts (per ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md) before sending — but the check itself lives in the matter-intake workflow or outside this skill.

© 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-intake of anthropics/claude-for-legal.

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 4a6c651

Used in 2 other repositories

We found 2 copies of this SKILL.md (exact, near-identical or edited) in other folders, from 2 other GitHub owners. This page covers the copy in anthropics/claude-for-legal, which our catalogue first saw on October 7, 2026.

Compare with similar skills

Demand Intake 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 Intake compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Demand Intake this skillanthropics/claude-for-legal9.6k2 repos~3.2kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Litigation Deadline Calendarlawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills842—~4.3kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Moot Court Simulation Buildercat-xierluo/legal-skills717—~1.4kAutomated safety check: PassCC-BY-NC-4.0
Tw Legal RAGaa0101181514/tw-legal-rag328—~580Automated safety check: PassCustom licence
Design Award SearchSeanJ1ang/design-judge-skills712—~3kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
China Lawyer AnalystCSlawyer1985/china-lawyer-analyst196—~3.3kAutomated safety check: PassNone

Similar skills

  • Litigation Deadline Calendar

    lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills

    Calendar litigation and arbitration deadlines from a scheduling order.

    842 GitHub stars~4.3k tokensUpdated 6 days ago
    Legal & ComplianceAuto-check passed

  • Moot Court Simulation Builder

    cat-xierluo/legal-skills

    Chinese-language skill that organizes a case file into a multi-role mock trial with judge, parties and clerk, producing a transcript, issue review and a to-strengthen list.

    717 GitHub stars~1.4k tokensUpdated yesterday
    Legal & ComplianceAuto-check passed

  • Tw Legal RAG

    aa0101181514/tw-legal-rag

    Retrieve real Taiwan court judgments with verifiable citations before answering any question about Taiwan law or case law.

    328 GitHub stars~580 tokensUpdated yesterday
    Legal & ComplianceAuto-check passed

  • Design Award Search

    SeanJ1ang/design-judge-skills

    Find and verify award-winning designs in the same or adjacent functional category through eight explicit relevance dimensions: problem and user, core function, sensing technology, intervention…

    712 GitHub stars~3k tokensUpdated 1 mo ago
    Legal & ComplianceAuto-check passed

  • China Lawyer Analyst

    CSlawyer1985/china-lawyer-analyst

    通过中国法律视角分析事件，运用成文法解释、指导案例参照、请求权基础分析等方法， 理解权利义务、评估责任风险、识别法律依据并推荐合规策略。

    196 GitHub stars~3.3k tokensUpdated 8 mo ago
    Legal & ComplianceAuto-check passed

  • Billing And Litigation Budget

    THUYRan/Legal-Skills-Chinese

    A skill your agent uses when the user needs to track or manage attorney hours, expert fees, and investigation costs; control litigation spend; or prepare timesheets or expense statements for clients.

    873 GitHub stars~5k tokensUpdated 1 mo ago
    Legal & ComplianceAuto-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

Categories

Questions about Demand Intake

What does Demand Intake do?

Pre-drafting context gathering for a demand letter — parties, facts, basis, leverage, BATNA, and privilege filters — written to a structured intake.md the demand-draft skill reads. Demand Intake is an agent skill from anthropics/claude-for-legal, published by the product's own GitHub organization.md the demand-draft skill reads.

When should I use Demand Intake?

Demand Intake fits situations like: the user wants to prep a demand letter; run intake before drafting; capture context for a payment demand; breach/cure notice.

How do I install Demand Intake in Claude Code?

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

How do I install Demand Intake in Codex?

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

Can I use Demand Intake 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-intake -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-intake, .gemini/skills/demand-intake, .github/skills/demand-intake and .opencode/skills/demand-intake in your project.

What does Demand Intake need to run?

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

Does Demand Intake 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 Intake 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 Intake use?

Demand Intake 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 Intake use?

About 3.2k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 13k 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 Intake?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Demand Intake: Litigation Deadline Calendar (lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills, 842 stars), Moot Court Simulation Builder (cat-xierluo/legal-skills, 717 stars), Tw Legal RAG (aa0101181514/tw-legal-rag, 328 stars) and Design Award Search (SeanJ1ang/design-judge-skills, 712 stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Demand Intake?

anthropics (a GitHub organization, an official publisher) maintains it in anthropics/claude-for-legal, which has 9,629 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.