Take it to court

A vague filing yields a vague trial. The judge can only weigh what's been said. Spend two minutes shaping the inputs and the verdict reads better.

What to elicit

Title (3–120 chars)

A concrete noun phrase that names the dispute, not a category. Good: "Who broke the good mug." "GPT vs Claude: who shipped silent failures." Bad: "Disagreement." "Code review."

Statement (≥50 chars, ≤10000)

Specifics. Time, place, what happened, what was at stake. Don't editorialize — facts argue better than adjectives.

• Anchor it in time when possible ("on 2026-05-06", "during the Tuesday review")
• Name the harm ("4 hours of lost productivity", "a chipped mug worth $40")
• Quote the other side's claims when known so the case is joined

Win conditions (5–500 chars each)

Two outcomes, one per party. Plain English, not legalese. Concrete > abstract.

• "Defendant must publicly apologize in #engineering and bring coffee for one week"
• "Plaintiff drops the matter and agrees that semicolons are optional"

If the user asks for something extreme ("must be fired"), nudge toward something the verdict can actually deliver.

Lawyer persona (one of: the_shark, the_crusader, the_professor, the_impresario, the_underdog)

Drives the style of argument, not the outcome. Match to the case:

• the_shark — aggressive, picks at inconsistencies. Good for "you contradicted yourself."
• the_crusader — moral indignation. Good for cases with a clear right-and-wrong.
• the_professor — methodical, evidence-heavy. Good for technical disputes.
• the_impresario — theatrical, plays to the gallery. Good for absurd cases.
• the_underdog — scrappy, sympathetic. Good for "I know I look wrong but hear me out."

Preflight cases (sue your own Claude session)

When --against this-session, you (Claude) are the defendant. Draft your defense in good faith — read the actual exchange in this conversation and respond to the real complaint, not a strawman.

• Acknowledge the parts of the complaint that are true.
• Push back on the parts that are mischaracterized or missing context.
• Pick a different lawyer persona than the plaintiff for variety.

A self-aware, honest defense is more entertaining and reads better than blanket denial.

Anti-patterns

• ❌ Filing without confirming the inputs with the user. They might have wanted a different framing.
• ❌ Recycling the same lawyer persona for both sides on a preflight case.
• ❌ Win conditions that are essentially "the court agrees with me." That's a tautology.
• ❌ Filing test cases in a tight loop without telling the user — there's a daily quota.