Case Strength Assessor

Then, for each criterion or prong you discuss, read the matching file:

• O-1A / EB-1A: knowledge/criteria/01-awards.md through 08-judging.md (map criterion numbers per checklist below)
• NIW: knowledge/prongs/01-substantial-merit.md, 02-well-positioned.md, 03-national-interest-balance.md

Use knowledge/argument-patterns.md only if you need to spot common failure modes (e.g., uncorroborated expert-only stacks).

How This Skill Works

1. Intake — Confirm petition target(s) and obtain the document index
2. Inventory — List which documents map to which criteria (O-1A/EB-1A) or which support which NIW prongs
3. Tier & corroboration — For each mapped item, classify evidence tier (Tier 1–4) and note whether independent documentary proof exists beyond letters
4. Rating — Assign STRONG / MODERATE / WEAK / INSUFFICIENT per criterion or prong
5. Synthesis — Overall readiness, gaps, and prioritized next steps (what to gather or fix before drafting)

Phase 1: Intake

Required inputs

1. Document index — Output from document-summary-arrangement (e.g. document_index.md or equivalent). If the user only has a partial index, say so and assess what is available; flag coverage gaps.
2. Target petition type(s) — Ask if not clear:
   • O-1A
   • EB-1A
   • EB-2 NIW
   • Multiple (e.g. "considering O-1 vs EB-1A") — assess against each requested type

Optional but helpful

3. Field of endeavor — Narrows whether certain criteria are realistic (e.g., exhibition criterion for non-artists).
4. Known weak spots — What the attorney or client already worries about (validate against the index).

If no document index exists, stop and tell the user to run /document-summary-arrangement first.

Phase 2: Map Evidence to Criteria or Prongs

O-1A / EB-1A — eight shared criteria (use these labels)

EB-1A-only (if assessing EB-1A): also evaluate when the index contains relevant evidence:

• Display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases (not investor pitch events)
• Commercial success in the performing arts (box office, sales, ratings, etc.)

NIW — three Dhanasar prongs (all must be supportable)

1. Substantial merit and national importance of the proposed endeavor
2. Well positioned to advance the endeavor
3. On balance, beneficial to waive job offer and labor certification

Map index entries to endeavor narrative (future-looking) vs purely past achievements; NIW fails if the index only proves past employment with no coherent proposed endeavor.

Phase 3: Evidence Tier & Strength Rules

For each criterion or prong you discuss:

1. Identify supporting documents from the index (by title/summary/type).
2. Classify each piece using knowledge/evidence-hierarchy.md (Tier 1–4).
3. Check corroboration — Expert/colloquial letters without independent docs are vulnerable (see overview files: letters are advisory, not substitutes for documentary proof).
4. Check criterion fit — Misfiled evidence (e.g., beneficiary's own articles under "press about the beneficiary") yields WEAK until reclassified.

Rating definitions

For EB-1A, apply a higher bar than O-1A: MODERATE for O-1 may be WEAK for EB-1A. Say this explicitly when relevant.

For NIW, if any prong is WEAK or INSUFFICIENT, state that the petition is not ready until that prong is supported (all three must be met).

Step 2 (EB-1A) — preview only

If assessing EB-1A, add a short Step 2 / totality preview based on the index: does the file suggest sustained national or international acclaim (not one-off wins)? List what would likely anchor a Step 2 argument vs what is missing. This is not a final legal conclusion — it is a drafting readiness signal.

Phase 4: Output Format

Produce a single assessment document with the following sections.

1. Executive summary (5–10 sentences)

• Petition type(s) assessed
• Count of STRONG vs MODERATE vs WEAK/INSUFFICIENT criteria (or prongs)
• One blunt sentence: e.g. "The file currently supports a credible case on criteria X and Y only; Z should not be drafted as a lead criterion without new evidence."

2. Overall readiness (not a legal verdict)

Use one label:

• DRAFTING VIABLE — At least three criteria (O-1A/EB-1A) or all three prongs (NIW) at MODERATE or better, with a clear path in the index
• DRAFTING RISKY — Three criteria met on paper but several are MODERATE/WEAK; high RFE risk
• NOT READY — Fewer than three viable criteria, or NIW prong(s) unsupported

Always repeat: not approval odds — readiness to invest in drafting.

3. Per-criterion or per-prong table

O-1A / EB-1A example:

NIW example:

4. Misclassification risks

Bullet list: evidence that may be wrong criterion, overstated in summary, or needs re-labeling before drafting.

5. Evidence gaps (prioritized)

Numbered list: what to obtain before petition narrative (specific document types, not generic "more awards").

6. Recommended sequencing

• Which criteria to lead vs support in the letter
• Whether to defer filing until gaps close
• If NIW: whether niw-national-importance-research should run before niw-petition-narrative

Rules

• Be frank — Attorneys need honesty, not encouragement.
• Ground every rating in the index and the knowledge files — no invented facts.
• If the index summary is vague, say "unclear from index — verify exhibit" rather than guessing.
• Do not draft petition language — this skill stops at assessment.
• Remind the user that final strategy belongs to a licensed attorney.

Workflow Position

This skill is optional. Many cases go straight from the document index to petition narrative skills.

document-summary-arrangement → document index
       │
       ├── (optional) case-strength-assessor → strength assessment  ← this skill
       │
       └──→ o1-petition-narrative / eb1a-petition-narrative / niw-petition-narrative (usual next step)

When to use: Only if the attorney wants a dedicated pre-draft read on criterion/prong strength from the index — e.g. to decide whether to delay drafting until more exhibits arrive. Otherwise skip.