Case Assistant prompt cookbook

The best prompts identify a scope, a test, and the desired proposal. Ask the assistant to list ambiguity instead of resolving it by guesswork.

People and meetings

Find every reference to the meeting on 2026-12-31. Show which references name John Smith. For facts clearly describing the same meeting, propose linking the correct John Smith person. If more than one record matches, let me choose; do not create a new person unless I select that option.

Find references to “J. Smith,” “John,” and “Smith” that may refer to John Smith. Group certain, likely, and ambiguous matches. Propose links only for certain matches.

Show all facts linked to John Smith that actually describe another person. Propose unlinking only where the cited text makes the mismatch clear.

Timeline normalization

The park meeting occurred on 2026-12-31. Find facts that clearly refer to that meeting and propose setting date_occurred to 2026-12-31. Preserve approximate date precision where the source is not exact.

Find events whose timeline_sort_date conflicts with date_occurred. Propose corrections one fact at a time and cite the fact that supplies the correct date.

Identify sequences where an alleged notice occurs after the response it supposedly caused. Do not change dates; explain the conflict and source IDs.

Facts and evidence

Find supported or established facts with no evidence link. Distinguish missing evidence from evidence that exists but is not connected.

Review facts mentioning the delivery receipt. Propose consistent category and tags, but do not alter the fact text or status.

Find duplicate facts that express the same event. List them and their links. Do not delete or merge records.

Which evidence items are isolated from facts, and which could support more than one fact? Propose evidence metadata cleanup only; explain suggested graph links without applying unsupported operations.

Fact hierarchy

Find facts that should be subordinate. A subordinate fact must be a specific detail, component, or consequence that naturally refines a broader fact about the same event or proposition. Return one proposal per high-confidence pair, cite both facts, and group ambiguous relationships as gaps.

Review the police-removal facts. If “The officers prevented Defendant from driving home” is a specific consequence of “Police officers removed Defendant from the offices,” propose the broader fact as parent and the specific fact as subordinate. Do not link them based only on a shared source entry.

Audit the existing fact hierarchy. Propose unlinking relationships where the child is merely chronological, duplicative, contradictory, or connected only by a shared date, person, source, or element. Explain each proposed removal and leave uncertain relationships unchanged.

Find specific notice terms that should sit beneath a broader fact stating that the notice was sent. Do not invent a parent fact when no broader proposition exists; list the missing parent as a gap instead.

Each proposal card represents one relationship edge. Accepting it preserves both facts as separate records. Review the direction carefully: the parent should be the broader proposition and the subordinate fact should be the narrower detail. Large searches return up to six ranked cards per batch; after reviewing them, ask the assistant to continue. See Organize parent and subordinate facts for the full model.

Claims and elements

Audit every element of the breach claim. For each element, list supporting facts, contrary facts, evidence coverage, authority coverage, and the single most important gap.

Find facts in the matter that appear relevant to the notice element but are not linked to it. Propose a fact-element link only when the relevance is explicit; include valence, strength, and rationale.

The “damages” element is too vague. Based only on the existing claim structure, propose a clearer name and standard. Do not invent a jurisdictional standard.

Find elements linked to facts with an opposing valence but described as fully satisfied. Explain the inconsistency before proposing any metadata change.

Authority

For every claim, identify elements without authority and authorities linked only at the claim level. Do not infer a holding from a case name or citation.

Find authority records missing a pin cite, quote verification note, weight, or fit rationale. Propose metadata changes only when another supplied record contains the value.

List adverse authorities in descending practical significance. Separate court weight from factual fit and identify which claim, element, fact, or motion each affects.

This citation is attorney-supplied: Example v. Example, 123 F.4th 456 (2d Cir. 2025). Propose creating the authority record, mark verification as required, and do not invent a quotation or holding.

Attorney theory

Stress-test the current theory. Quote no source text. Separate what the graph supports, what is contested, what is inferred, and what counsel has asserted.

Propose adding the late change order to concessions. Do not rewrite the thesis. Cite the facts showing why it must be addressed.

Compare the desired outcome to the claims and damages records. Identify relief the graph does not currently support.

Pre-drafting review

Before drafting the motion, identify every factual proposition that lacks evidence, every quotation or pin cite needing verification, every material contrary fact, and every disputed date. Return an ordered review list, not draft prose.

What bounded context should the drafter receive for the notice section? Favor the theory, the notice element, supporting and contrary facts, linked evidence, and controlling or adverse authority. State what the budget omits.

Discovery and case management

Turn the top five proof gaps into specific attorney review or discovery questions. Do not create tasks, deadlines, requests, or communications.

Which witnesses appear in facts but have no local person record? Offer entity resolution cards only where the name is explicit.

Find places described inconsistently across facts. Propose linking an existing place or creating one local place record; do not overwrite fact text.

Patterns to avoid

Avoid “clean up everything,” “make the case stronger,” or “fix the timeline.” These do not define certainty, scope, or protected fields. A safer replacement is:

Within facts mentioning the December 31 park meeting, propose only person links and exact-date metadata supported by cited records. Put uncertain matches in limitations. Make no text, status, claim, element, evidence, or authority changes.

Return to Case Assistant actions and safeguards or Case Context.