Free French-language pack
This pack turns the work of Claude, ChatGPT, Hermes or OpenClaw into registers, a chronology, a research note, a draft and a review report you can return to.
Claude
Hermes
OpenClawZIP archive, test case and evaluation results included. One professional email address is enough.
Demonstration case · 13 documents
Atelier Nord v. Studio Rivage
P-008 · 05.05.2026
Acceptance with minor reservations, no client signature
P-009 · 08.05.2026
Refusal of acceptance, signature attributed to the client
Decision required
Two versions of the acceptance report exist. The acceptance date remains disputed until the lawyer decides.
Contradiction preserved
01
Beyond the chat thread
A polished answer can hide a disputed date, a missing document or a source recalled from memory. Verifying it often means retracing the entire conversation.
Here, every stage leaves a deliverable. The same identifiers connect documents, facts, events, sources and anomalies through to final review.
What you receive
Each document can be read by the lawyer and becomes the input for the next stage.
Manifest: request, deadline, received documents, missing items and decisions required.
Registers and chronology: every fact and date retains its source and qualification.
Interview, research, draft and review: writing starts from the assembled case and returns with its anomalies.
02
The case, end to end
In Atelier Nord v. Studio Rivage, two versions of an acceptance report support different accounts. This is how the pack preserves the discrepancy instead of smoothing it over.
Reference
What enters the case file
Qualification
Version A records acceptance on 5 May without a client signature. Version B records refusal on 8 May with a signature attributed to the client.
2 competing documents
Two separate facts are recorded. Each retains its wording, source document and the contradiction connecting it to the other.
established_document
The chronology distinguishes the disputed 5 May availability from the alleged 8 May refusal.
disputed / alleged
The message transmitting the 8 May refusal is missing. The draft must request it before asserting its content or delivery.
major anomaly
The file does not choose a date based on plausibility. It shows the lawyer exactly what is established, what is alleged and which document is needed to decide.
03
Inside the archive
The complete pack runs the case from intake to review. You can also load one skill to prepare an interview, rebuild a chronology or review an existing draft.
Runs the case in the right order and checks that every expected deliverable exists before moving on.
Produces the manifest: request, deadline, received documents, missing items and expected approvals.
Produces document and fact registers, with a source and status for every item.
Produces a chronology where certain, alleged and disputed dates remain explicitly distinct.
Turns gaps in the file into neutral, prioritized questions and a list of documents to request.
Produces a note based on official sources that were actually opened, or a research plan when access is unavailable.
Prepares a draft whose facts and authorities can be found in the previous artifacts.
Reads the draft like an opposing party and produces a verdict with the corrections required.
04
What you can audit
The fictional case lets you inspect the agent's behaviour before using real data. The references below point to documents, sources and anomalies included in the pack.
P-008 / P-009
P-008 and P-009 remain visible in the register and chronology. The decision appears explicitly as work for the lawyer.
S-001 / S-002
The demonstration note links its analysis to Articles 1217 and 1219 of the French Civil Code opened on Legifrance.
P-013
The instruction addressed to the agent in the formal notice is recorded as hostile content. No email is sent.
A-001 / A-003
The `a_corriger` report connects each anomaly to a correction: decide a position, obtain the notice, establish the technical cause.
Evaluation log
Agents were tested without access to the reference artifacts. The observations concern behaviour, not a pre-written answer.
E01
Complete orchestration
Thirteen documents indexed, contradictions and missing items preserved, no external action executed.
passed
E02
Research without web access
The first run cited from memory. The stop condition was strengthened, then the test passed without an invented legal answer.
corrected, then passed
E05
Adversarial review
The deliverable presented as final was rejected and the major anomalies remained in the report.
passed
Results dated 24 July 2026. Scenarios E03, E04 and E06 are defined but have not yet received a documented run.
05
Download
You receive the complete archive by email. The Atelier Nord case immediately shows the expected registers, chronology, research note, draft and review report.
01Format compatible with Claude, ChatGPT Skills, Codex, Hermes and OpenClaw
02A thirteen-document fictional case for the first test
03MIT licence and security documentation included
Enter your professional email. The download link arrives in a separate email.
06
The next stage
The pack is a generic foundation. A custom agent applies the same workflow to your templates, procedures, sources, tools and authorization levels.
01Connect authorized sources, document management, messaging and the firm's legal tools.
02Turn templates, checklists and internal rules into explicit, controlled and auditable stages.
03Assign every action an access right, an execution condition and the expected level of approval.
Frequently asked questions
A prompt gives a one-off instruction. Each skill describes a reusable procedure with inputs, deliverables, identifiers and transition conditions. `piloter-dossier` then coordinates the complete workflow.
The format is designed for Claude and Claude Code, ChatGPT Skills and Codex, Nous Research's Hermes and OpenClaw. Capabilities and behaviour may vary by platform, model and available tools.
The documentation shows where to place the eight folders on each platform. The Atelier Nord case then provides a complete first test, with expected deliverables and behaviours for comparison.
It stops. It may produce questions and search queries to verify, but it forbids substantive legal answers or citations recalled from model memory.
The same workflow can be adapted to the firm's templates, sources, legal tools, procedures and access rights. Every action is then connected to a defined authorization and approval.