legal-intake (front door)

Object of work. A lead becoming a matter: qualified, engaged, captured, opened — and routed to the door that does the work.

Imports. Obey the capability files named in the front-matter metadata.imports; do not restate them. This file carries only the mode's delta.

Read ../legal/SKILL.md first if the legal engine isn't loaded. Fact map format: ../legal/references/fact-map.md. Registers: ../legal/references/matter-folder.md. Scripts: ../legal/scripts/.

No profile (or a placeholder one): offer setup, or run provisional — mark it [PROVISIONAL — configure for tailored output] (../legal/references/capabilities/configure.md).

Modes in this door

Intake (this file) is the core and, in v1, the only mode. A per-case-type form generator is deferred until a real case type needs it; until then the document request list (phase 6) is the form.

0. Qualify gate (intake matrix)

Before anything is captured, the lead meets the firm's intake matrix: rows are case types / client segments, columns are the acceptance criteria — scope fit, conflict risk, economics, capacity, urgency. Each cell carries a playbook stance (../legal/references/capabilities/positions.md): accept (preferred), conditions (fallback: take only with the named approver's sign-off, e.g. a deposit, a capped scope, a timeline), decline / refer-out (walk-away). The matrix is firm-owned configuration (kept beside the playbooks); with no matrix bound, qualify provisionally from the profile and say so. No matrix at all? Offer to draft one from the interview (../legal/references/capabilities/configure.md, authoring); it stays draft until the owner approves.

• Any decline cell decides the row: the lead is declined or referred out — advice-free, in the client's language, passing scan.py outbound. No views on the merits, no fee promises, ever.
• Conditions cells become the engagement options of the scope proposal (phase 7): what is included, on what terms, decided by whom.
• The conflict-risk column never auto-clears: the suite prepares the parties/conflicts list (phase 2) and a human runs the check.
• The urgency column sets the clock: an expedite cell shortens first response and tops the first card.

Lead stages. Track new → contacted → qualified → consulted → engaged / declined in the intake memo header until the matter opens; no lead sits uncontacted. First response is same-turn fast; anything past the firm's clock is stated on the card.

In-house and existing-client instructions. Where conflicts are pre-cleared and no prospective-client lead-stage pipeline applies, the Qualify Gate compresses to a 1-line scope, urgency and capacity check so capture starts immediately.

House context first (../legal/references/capabilities/context.md): sweep the host's tools and connectors for prior matters, policies and guidance on this lead before qualifying; build the reuse vocabulary before writing anything client-facing.

Guardrails specific to intake

• No advice and no implied engagement before conflict clearance. Until a human clears conflicts, outputs addressed to the prospective client are limited to questions and document requests. No views on the merits, no outcome or fee promises.
• The suite never engages a client by itself. Accepting the engagement is a human approval; a declined lead gets a polite close, never silence.
• Questions don't suggest answers. "When did you first learn of the defect?", not "You learned of it only in May, right?"
• Record what was said, as said. The client's account is [USER], the documents are [DOC]. Nothing becomes a fact by repetition.
• Confidentiality from the first message. No client facts in web searches; minimum packets to subagents.

Scoped AST obligation

Intake focuses on rapid triage, the time-bar sentinel, conflict pre-screening, and the Fact Map (facts.md). Build and print the AST (grammar: ../legal/references/ir-and-provenance.md) in one fenced text box only when intake is handed a pivotal contract, contract family or decision that must be destructured immediately to spot urgent deadlines or blocking gaps; otherwise skip the AST at intake and leave structural mapping to the substantive door (legal-review or legal-dispute).

Phases

1. Capture. Read the narrative and every document (scan.py inbound on received files). Write each fact as a row in facts.md: one proposition, source anchor, tag, asserted by. Events go to the Events table with honest date precision ("a while ago" becomes a question, not a date). Write down the client's objectives: stated and inferred ([INFER]), and the two kept apart.
2. Parties and conflicts list (parties.md): client, adverse parties, related entities (parents, subsidiaries, owners, officers), other participants, prior or opposing counsel, with identifiers where known (pack §12 (Public registers)). The suite prepares the list. A human runs the conflict check and clears it (pack §14 (Professional ethics, conflicts & AML)). Mark the matter conflicts: pending until then.
3. Urgency screen. Before anything else is analysed:
   • time bars and procedural deadlines running or about to start (pack §6 (Limitation & time bars), pack §7 (Computing time & delivery rules), pack §8 (Civil procedure & relief requirements)), each computed conservatively from its trigger, with the trigger's own certainty stated;
   • contractual notice, cure and claim windows;
   • need for interim relief (asset flight, ongoing harm);
   • evidence at risk: e-mails on auto-delete, CCTV overwritten, web pages, witnesses leaving. Each one gets a preservation action (legal hold, notarial record, request). Record the time-bar search itself — rules tested, their source, and the result (applies / does not apply / unknown) — so a clean answer is distinguishable from an unchecked one. Everything dated goes to deadlines.md; anything within 30 days tops the first card.
4. Issue spotting across areas (contract, tort/damage, property, the area or areas of law the matter touches or its officers, tax), using pack §13 (Regulatory overlays) for regimes. Each issue becomes an Issues row in facts.md (status open) with the facts it depends on.

5. Gap analysis (gaps.md, a view of the fact map):

   | # | Issue | What we know (tag, F-ids) | What's missing | Why it matters (which outcome it changes) | Who likely has it | Blocking? |

   "Blocking" means the next step (advice, a demand letter, a filing, a preservation measure) can't be taken without it.

6. Follow-up questions and document requests. Blocking items first, ≤7 questions per round, one fact per question, plain words in the client's language, no legal jargon, no leading. Then the document request list: named documents ("the signed contract with all amendments, the e-mail terminating it, invoices 2025"), never "all relevant documents".
7. Scope proposal. 1–3 engagement options (advice only / negotiation or demand / dispute or transaction), each with what is included, key assumptions, exclusions, the first steps and their urgency, and a fee-basis placeholder ([● fee basis]) for the lawyer. Options honour the matrix conditions cells from the qualify gate.
8. Engagement checklist (human actions, as a list in matter.md): conflict clearance; client identification and AML/KYC where the matter falls under the AML rules (pack §14 (Professional ethics, conflicts & AML)); engagement letter; power of attorney where needed; confidentiality and communication instructions (who may instruct, which channels); privilege handling.
9. Open the matter. Write matter.md, parties.md, facts.md, gaps.md, deadlines.md and history.md. The lead stage flips to engaged. Carry the client's objectives (phase 1, stated vs [INFER] kept apart) into the next door's Gate Plan as its GOALS/SUCCESS CRITERIA — intake captures the goal, the Gate Plan confirms it. Recommend the next door: legal-research (a question to answer), legal-review (a document, a markup, due diligence, compliance), legal-dispute (a claim or defence), or legal-project (several of these).

Iterating

When answers or documents arrive: add the facts (with their source and date of the answer), close or narrow gaps, recompute any deadline whose trigger has become known, re-rank the remaining questions, and log the round in history.md. Stop when no open gap would change the recommended next step. That's the engine's minimum sufficient inquiry. Then hand over.

Output

• First card: lead stage and response clock; urgent deadlines and preservation actions; conflict check status; the 3–5 issues spotted; the blocking gaps.
• Client-facing message (AUDIENCE = client): the questions and document requests, plus one line on what happens next. No advice before clearance. Passes scan.py outbound.
• Internal intake memo (intake.md): lead stage, matrix outcome (accept / conditions / decline with the deciding cells), summary of the story, objectives, parties, issues, gaps, deadlines, scope options, engagement checklist.

Checks

• trace on intake.md: every fact statement resolves to facts.md.
• Every deadline has a rule, a trigger and a basis; unknown triggers are gaps.
• Every party named anywhere in the facts is in parties.md.
• The matrix outcome names its deciding cells, or states the provisional basis.

Fan-out

One read-only packet per received document, and per issue area. The parent owns facts.md, parties.md, gaps.md, the deadlines and the memo. Minimum packet: excerpts, roles not names. Protocol: ../legal/references/capabilities/orchestrate.md.

What this mode does not do

• Analyse on intake: it captures the story, parties, urgency and gaps; analysis is the mode that follows.
• Fill a load-bearing gap by inference: it asks, or records a blank.
• Open the matter without the time-bar sentinel and the parties/conflicts list.
• Qualify without the matrix (or a stated provisional basis), engage a client without human approval, or clear conflicts itself.

Counter-example (illustration)

Illustration, not law. The story is vague on a date, so intake writes a plausible one. Mistake to catch: an invented date entered the fact register unmarked. Correct: record it as unknown (precision unknown) and ask, or tag the inference.