Claude-Skills mediation-analysis

install
source · Clone the upstream repo
git clone https://github.com/borghei/Claude-Skills
Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/borghei/Claude-Skills "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/legal/mediation-analysis" ~/.claude/skills/borghei-claude-skills-mediation-analysis && rm -rf "$T"
manifest: legal/mediation-analysis/SKILL.md
source content

⚠️ EXPERIMENTAL — This skill is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It does NOT constitute legal advice. All responsibility for usage rests with the user. Consult qualified legal professionals before acting on any output.

Mediation Analysis

Production-ready framework for analyzing disputes and preparing mediation strategy. Covers the full cycle from dispute assessment through settlement calculation, interest mapping, and mediation readiness.


Table of Contents


Operating Modes

Mode 1: Guided Information Gathering

Use when starting from scratch without structured materials.

Step 1 -- Dispute Overview:

  • Who are the parties? (names, roles, relationship)
  • What is the dispute about? (summary in neutral terms)
  • When did the dispute arise? (timeline of key events)
  • What is the current status? (pre-litigation, filed, discovery, trial date)

Step 2 -- Positions and Claims:

  • What does each party want? (stated positions)
  • What are the claimed amounts? (monetary and non-monetary)
  • What evidence supports each side?
  • What are the weaknesses in each side's case?

Step 3 -- Context and Constraints:

  • Is there an ongoing relationship? (employment, commercial, family)
  • Are there power imbalances? (resources, information, leverage)
  • Are there time pressures? (deadlines, statute of limitations)
  • What has been tried so far? (direct negotiation, prior mediation)

Mode 2: Direct Analysis

Use when dispute materials are already available (pleadings, correspondence, statements).

Provide the materials and specify which analysis sections are needed. The framework will extract the structured analysis from the raw materials.


Tools

Dispute Analyzer

Extracts structured dispute data from text descriptions.

# Analyze a dispute description
python scripts/dispute_analyzer.py --input dispute.txt

# Analyze with JSON output
python scripts/dispute_analyzer.py --input dispute.txt --json

# Analyze inline text
python scripts/dispute_analyzer.py --text "Party A claims breach of contract for failure to deliver..."

# Save structured analysis
python scripts/dispute_analyzer.py --input dispute.txt --output analysis.json

Settlement Calculator

Calculates BATNA, WATNA, ZOPA, and settlement scenarios.

# Calculate from parameters file
python scripts/settlement_calculator.py --input params.json

# Calculate with JSON output
python scripts/settlement_calculator.py --input params.json --json

# Quick inline calculation
python scripts/settlement_calculator.py \
  --claimed 500000 \
  --litigation-cost-a 80000 \
  --litigation-cost-b 120000 \
  --probability 0.65 \
  --time-to-trial 18

# Save settlement analysis
python scripts/settlement_calculator.py --input params.json --output settlement.json

Core Analysis Framework

The analysis produces 6 sections. Each section builds on the previous.

Section 1: Case Summary

Write a neutral chronological summary covering:

ElementDescription
PartiesNames, roles, and relationship
TimelineKey events in chronological order
Dispute triggerThe event that escalated to a dispute
Current statusProcedural posture (pre-suit, filed, discovery)
Prior resolution attemptsWhat has been tried

Neutrality check: The summary should be acceptable to both parties. Avoid characterizing conduct as "wrong" or "unreasonable."

Section 2: Issues in Dispute

For each issue, document:

ComponentDescription
Issue statementNeutral framing of the disputed question
Party A positionWhat Party A asserts and why
Party B positionWhat Party B asserts and why
Key evidenceEvidence supporting each side
Strength assessmentStrong / Moderate / Weak for each side
Legal basisApplicable law, contract terms, or principles

Section 3: Underlying Interests Analysis

Move beyond positions to interests. See detailed section below.

Section 4: Legal Analysis

Per-issue assessment of legal merits. See detailed section below.

Section 5: Mediation Strategy and Settlement Directions

BATNA/WATNA, ZOPA, and settlement scenarios. See detailed section below.

Section 6: Mediation Readiness Checklist

ItemStatusNotes
All parties agreed to mediate
Mediator selected and confirmed
Decision-makers attending or available
Key documents exchanged or available
Opening statement prepared
Settlement authority established
BATNA/WATNA analysis complete
Non-monetary interests identified
Creative options brainstormed
Authority limits clarified with client

Underlying Interests Analysis

Interests are the needs, concerns, and motivations behind stated positions.

Interest Categories

CategoryDescriptionExamples
LegalRights, entitlements, obligationsContract rights, statutory claims, precedent
CommercialBusiness and financial concernsRevenue, costs, market position, reputation
RelationalRelationship preservationOngoing business, employment, community ties
EmotionalPersonal feelings and valuesFairness, respect, acknowledgment, vindication
ProceduralHow the process unfoldsSpeed, privacy, control, voice, transparency

Interest Mapping

For each party, map interests by category and priority:

PartyInterestCategoryPriorityCompatible?
APreserve business reputationCommercialHighYes -- shared
ARecover financial lossesLegal/CommercialHighNegotiable
BAvoid setting precedentLegalHighNegotiable
BMaintain relationship with ARelationalMediumYes -- shared

Shared and Compatible Interests

Identify interests both parties share or that do not conflict:

  • Shared: Both want confidentiality, speed, cost control
  • Compatible: A wants acknowledgment, B wants no public admission -- private acknowledgment possible
  • Conflicting: A wants maximum payment, B wants minimum payment -- negotiation zone needed

Barriers to Resolution

BarrierDescriptionMitigation
Reactive devaluationOffers seem less attractive because they come from the other sideHave mediator propose options
AnchoringFirst number distorts all subsequent negotiationUse objective criteria to anchor
Loss aversionParties feel losses more than equivalent gainsFrame in terms of gains vs current state
Principal-agentParty's representative may have different interestsEnsure decision-makers participate
Information asymmetryOne party knows more than the otherStructured disclosure through mediator

Legal Analysis

For each disputed issue, assess:

FactorAssessment
Applicable lawStatute, regulation, contract term, or common law
Strength of claimStrong (>70%) / Moderate (40-70%) / Weak (<40%)
Key uncertaintiesFactual disputes, legal ambiguities, evidentiary gaps
Likely trial outcomeBest case, worst case, most likely
Damages rangeIf claimant prevails, likely award range
Costs to trialAttorney fees, expert fees, opportunity costs per party
Time to resolutionMonths/years to trial and potential appeal

Settlement Strategy

BATNA / WATNA Analysis

MetricParty AParty B
Best Alternative (BATNA)Win at trial, recover full claim + costsWin at trial, pay nothing + recover costs
Worst Alternative (WATNA)Lose at trial, recover nothing, pay own costsLose at trial, pay full claim + costs
Most Likely AlternativePartial recovery minus litigation costsPartial liability minus litigation costs
Litigation cost estimate$X over Y months$X over Y months
Net expected value(Probability x Award) - Litigation costs-(Probability x Award) - Litigation costs

ZOPA Identification

The Zone of Possible Agreement exists when Party A's minimum acceptable settlement is less than Party B's maximum they would pay.

Party A minimum = Expected trial value - litigation costs - risk discount
Party B maximum = Expected trial liability + litigation costs + risk premium

ZOPA exists when: A minimum < B maximum
ZOPA range: [A minimum ... B maximum]

Settlement Scenarios

ScenarioDescriptionWhen Appropriate
Straightforward CompromiseSplit the difference on monetary claimsSimple disputes with clear monetary value
Interest-Based SolutionAddress underlying interests beyond moneyOngoing relationships, non-monetary concerns
Package DealBundle monetary and non-monetary elementsComplex disputes with multiple issues and interests

Reference Guides

GuidePathDescription
Mediation Process
references/mediation_process.md
12 stages of mediation with roles and techniques
Negotiation Concepts
references/negotiation_concepts.md
BATNA, WATNA, ZOPA, interest-based negotiation, barriers

Workflows

Workflow 1: Full Mediation Preparation

  1. Gather dispute information (Mode 1 or Mode 2).
  2. Run
    scripts/dispute_analyzer.py
    on available materials.
  3. Complete the 6-section Core Analysis Framework.
  4. Run
    scripts/settlement_calculator.py
    with dispute parameters.
  5. Prepare opening statement and settlement proposals.
  6. Complete Mediation Readiness Checklist.
  7. Validation: All 6 sections complete, BATNA/ZOPA calculated, proposals prepared.

Workflow 2: Quick Settlement Range

  1. Identify claimed amount, litigation costs, and success probability.
  2. Run
    scripts/settlement_calculator.py
    with parameters.
  3. Review ZOPA range and three scenarios.
  4. Adjust parameters for sensitivity analysis.
  5. Validation: Settlement range established with supporting rationale.

Workflow 3: Multi-Party Mediation

  1. Map all parties and their relationships.
  2. Run dispute analysis for each bilateral relationship.
  3. Identify coalition possibilities and shared interests.
  4. Calculate settlement ranges for each party pair.
  5. Design package deals that address all parties' core interests.
  6. Validation: Each party pair analyzed, coalitions mapped, package options developed.

Troubleshooting

ProblemLikely CauseResolution
ZOPA appears negativeParties' expectations unrealistic or litigation costs understatedReality-test each party's BATNA; increase cost estimates
Cannot identify interestsParties stuck on positionsUse "why" questions; explore consequences of winning/losing
Power imbalance distorting negotiationResource or information asymmetryRecommend process adjustments; structured information sharing
Decision-maker absentRepresentative lacks authorityAdjourn until decision-maker available; confirm authority in advance
Emotional barriers dominantUnresolved relational issuesAddress emotional interests first; consider apology or acknowledgment
Multi-party complexityToo many bilateral dynamicsBreak into sub-mediations; use single-text procedure

Success Criteria

CriterionTarget
Dispute issues identifiedAll contested issues listed with positions
Interests mappedAt least 3 interests per party, categorized
Legal strength assessedEach issue rated with rationale
BATNA/WATNA calculatedBoth parties' alternatives quantified
ZOPA identifiedSettlement range established or confirmed negative
Settlement scenariosMinimum 3 scenarios with rationale
Readiness checklistAll items addressed before mediation

Scope & Limitations

In scope: Dispute analysis, interest mapping, settlement calculation, mediation preparation, negotiation strategy.

Out of scope: Acting as mediator, providing legal advice, predicting judicial outcomes with certainty, drafting settlement agreements, representing parties.

Disclaimer: This skill provides an analytical framework for mediation preparation. It does not constitute legal advice. Settlement calculations are estimates based on inputs provided and should be validated by qualified counsel.


Anti-Patterns

Anti-PatternWhy It FailsBetter Approach
Positional bargaining onlyFocuses on what parties demand, ignoring why they want it; leaves value on the tableMap interests first, then generate options that satisfy underlying needs
Ignoring litigation costs in settlement mathParties anchor on the claim amount without factoring in costs to pursue it; produces unrealistic expectationsAlways include full litigation costs (fees, time, opportunity cost) in BATNA calculation
Assuming equal bargaining powerPower imbalances distort negotiation; weaker party may accept unfavorable terms under pressureIdentify imbalances early; recommend process protections (separate caucuses, information sharing, independent advice)
Skipping emotional interestsEmotional needs (respect, acknowledgment, fairness) often drive dispute more than money; ignoring them produces impasseInclude emotional and relational interests in the analysis alongside legal and commercial interests

Tool Reference

ToolInputOutputUse Case
dispute_analyzer.py
Dispute description textStructured analysis with parties, issues, interests, timelineFirst-pass dispute structuring
settlement_calculator.py
Dispute parameters (amounts, costs, probability)BATNA/WATNA, ZOPA, 3 settlement scenariosQuantitative settlement range analysis