# Extract Client Intake Facts Divorce Scenario 02 > Extract and organize key facts from a disorganized client intake for a contested divorce matter, with emphasis on asset characterization, potential dissipation, transfer timing, and the client’s stated priorities. - Skill: `finchipaiorg/extract-client-intake-facts-divorce-scenario-02` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add finchipaiorg/extract-client-intake-facts-divorce-scenario-02` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/finchipaiorg/extract-client-intake-facts-divorce-scenario-02/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: FinchipAIOrg (https://skillmd.com/u/finchipaiorg) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/finchipaiorg/extract-client-intake-facts-divorce-scenario-02 --- # Skill: Extract Client Intake Facts — Divorce/Family Law Scenario (Variant) ## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting - Treating an unsupported separate-property assertion as established when the file does not show a clear source-of-funds trail - Flattening contested-divorce facts into a narrative instead of separating characterization, timing, control, and liquidity facts - Missing dissipation signals embedded in scattered expense, transfer, and account activity references - Overlooking whether an asserted home-retention goal is feasible given refinance, buyout, or debt-service facts - Failing to distinguish what is stated in the intake materials from what still needs verification - Omitting follow-up facts needed for tracing, valuation, and preservation ## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply - Use the family-law intake lens centered on marital vs. separate characterization, commingling, tracing, appreciation, dissipation, maintenance-relevant facts, retirement-account issues, and digital-asset transfers - Treat an asset claimed as separate as contested unless the source materials show a defensible paper trail for acquisition with separate funds or other recognized separate-source proof - Treat a transfer of digital assets shortly before or during separation as a timing and concealment-risk fact that may warrant tracing, preservation, and account-access follow-up - Treat suspicious business or personal spending as a dissipation issue when the facts suggest non-marital purpose, concealment, or unilateral depletion - When the client states a priority such as keeping the home, frame that goal against available liquidity, debt capacity, title, and buyout/refinance constraints - Use general divorce-property doctrines and the governing local family-law framework reflected in the source materials; do not invent unsupported statutory conclusions - If a legal proposition is stated, identify the controlling authority or family-law doctrine supporting it rather than offering a bare conclusion ## 4. Analytical scaffolds - First separate the facts into: parties, timeline, property, debts, income, transfers, expenses, children/household facts if any, and stated objectives - For each asset or account, ask: - what it is - how it was acquired - whose name controls it - when it was acquired or transferred - what evidence supports separate vs. marital characterization - whether tracing is possible from the current record - For each transfer or withdrawal, ask: - date or relative timing - source and destination - amount or other scale from the source materials - whether the timing coincides with separation, dispute escalation, or preservation concerns - whether the fact suggests concealment, dissipation, or ordinary household administration - For each suspicious spending pattern, aggregate the identified categories into one dissipation summary while preserving the component items used to reach it - For a home-retention objective, identify: - equity and debt facts - likely refinance or buyout constraints - assets the client appears willing to trade - whether the current record supports feasibility or only a stated preference - For every contested fact, preserve the distinction between: - client assertion - documentary support - gap requiring follow-up - If more than one asset, transfer, account, or period appears in the materials, enumerate them explicitly before analysis and keep each item separate in the memo ## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships (only if applicable) - Map ownership and control vertically: account holder, beneficial owner, titled owner, user, signatory, and source of funds - Map timing horizontally: premarital acquisition, marriage-period acquisition, pre-separation transfer, post-separation conduct, and current status - Link related records across documents when one source explains, qualifies, or contradicts another - Flag any mismatch between a stated characterization and the surrounding chronology, tax treatment, account title, or transfer trail - Where the same asset appears in multiple forms, connect the forms rather than repeating the fact in isolation - Highlight if a transfer precedes a filing, demand, or known dispute milestone by a short interval, but state the timing using the record’s own dates rather than extrapolation ## 6. Output structure conventions - Produce a structured key-facts memo, not an argument memo and not a chronology only - Use conventional headings such as: - Matter overview - Parties and relationship history - Key dates and procedural posture - Assets and liabilities - Transfers and account activity - Dissipation / concealment indicators - Client objectives and constraints - Open questions / follow-up needed - Under assets and liabilities, separate each item into a discrete entry with characterization, control, source-of-funds clues, and unresolved issues - Include a concise dissipation summary table when suspicious spending or depletion appears; preserve component categories and then state the combined concern - Include a short transfer timeline when asset movement or digital-asset activity appears; pair each entry with the follow-up it requires - Use an explicit status label for each key fact, such as confirmed / stated / disputed / unclear, so the reader can tell support level at a glance - Keep quotations minimal; prefer paraphrase unless the wording itself is important - End with a focused follow-up section that identifies what information, documents, or confirmations are still needed to complete tracing, characterization, or feasibility analysis