Test run on case 1130-25 revealed critical gaps. This commit fixes:
HEARTBEAT.md (#1, #11):
- Agents MUST wake CEO after completing any task (wakeup request)
- New "blocked" status option — agents cannot mark "done" if something failed
- Fallback: direct DB insert if API wake doesn't work
legal-analyst.md (#2):
- New step 6: completeness checks BEFORE finishing
- Verify all appeal/response documents extracted successfully
- Verify all extracted documents produced claims
- Verify classification is correct (no claims from committee)
- If any check fails → status = "blocked", not "done"
legal-ceo.md (#3, #6, #7, #12, #13, #14, #15):
- Step A rewritten with 3 sub-checks:
A1: extraction completeness (no missing documents)
A2: negative checks (wrong classification, abnormal counts, missing parties)
A3: methodology compliance (syllogisms, CREAC prep, steel-man, etc.)
- Any failure blocks progress to step B
legal-qa.md (#6 reinforcement):
- New step 2b: negative checks on the written decision
- Missing issues, bare quotes, empty formulas, mixed findings/conclusions
Also:
- Synced all agent files to /home/chaim/legal-ai/ (Paperclip reads from there)
- Synced methodology + lessons + corpus docs
- Fixed claim classification in DB: 20 committee/applicant claims → response (#5)
Remaining gaps (3):
- #4: Paperclip cache may need restart to pick up new definitions
- #7: Matmon document retry (25K words, 0 claims extracted)
- #9: 53 appellant claims may need synthesis (high but not blocking)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
"בית ספר להחלטות" Phase 2 — the system now has formal analytical
methodology for building quasi-judicial decisions, separate from
Dafna's writing style (SKILL.md) and content checklists.
What was done:
- Downloaded 5 authoritative sources (~341K words): FJC Judicial
Writing Manual (1991+2020), Garner Legal Writing in Plain English,
Posner How Judges Think, Scalia/Garner Making Your Case
- Extracted principles from all sources into intermediate docs
- Synthesized into docs/decision-methodology.md (3,400 words,
12 sections, 10 guiding principles)
- Integrated methodology into block-yod prompt via {methodology_guidance}
- Restructured legal-writer agent workflow to follow analytical stages
- Made "answer all claims" flexible (bundle/skip via chair_directions)
- Added methodology compliance check (#7) to legal-qa agent
- Updated all knowledge files (CLAUDE.md, SKILL.md, lessons, corpus)
Three-layer architecture:
1. Methodology (decision-methodology.md) — universal, how to think
2. Content checklists (lessons.py) — specific per appeal subtype
3. Style (SKILL.md) — Dafna's personal writing patterns
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Complete agent pipeline for decision writing:
1. legal-analyst (existing) — extract claims/responses/replies
2. legal-researcher (new) — analyze precedents, plans, protocols
3. legal-writer (new) — write decision blocks in Dafna's style
4. legal-qa (new) — validate before export (6 checks)
All agents use claude_local adapter (Claude Code session, zero API cost).
Each has YAML frontmatter with specific tools and detailed Hebrew instructions.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
