interview-summary
Generates structured summaries of witness or subject interviews for criminal defense investigations. Distills key facts, verbatim statements, credibility indicators, and follow-up leads. Use when summarizing defense interviews, witness debriefs, subject interrogations, or investigative interview ...
SKILL.md
Full skill instructions
Interview Summary
Produces a structured memorandum distilling a witness or subject interview into actionable intelligence for defense teams and investigators.
Prerequisites
- Interview materials — transcript, audio transcription, investigator notes, or preliminary report
- Matter reference — case name/number and investigation context
- Related evidence — prior witness statements, documents shown during interview, or known inconsistencies
Quick Start
Collect interview materials, then generate each section below in order. Mark the document ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT — PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL.
Output Sections
1. Header Block
| Field | Content |
|---|---|
| Date/Time | Interview date, start/end time |
| Location | Interview site |
| Interviewee | Name, role, relationship to matter |
| Interviewer(s) | Names, titles |
| Counsel Present | Defense counsel, interviewee's counsel if any |
| Observers | Anyone else present |
| Matter Reference | Case name/number |
| Privilege Marking | ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT — PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL |
2. Executive Summary
3–5 sentences covering:
- Most significant factual revelations
- Key admissions or denials
- Overall credibility assessment
- Impact on defense theory
3. Substantive Summary
Organize thematically, not chronologically:
- Background & Relationship — connection to events, relevant history
- Key Events — who, what, when, where, why, how per incident
- Knowledge of Other Parties — interactions with co-defendants, witnesses, complainants
- Documents & Communications — documents shown, recognized, referenced; reactions to exhibits
Per theme:
- Lead with concise factual summary
- Embed verbatim quotes for significant statements (quotation marks + context)
- Note gaps where interviewee lacked knowledge or memory
4. Credibility & Demeanor
| Indicator | Observation |
|---|---|
| Consistency | Internal contradictions within interview |
| External conflicts | Contradictions with other evidence or witnesses |
| Demeanor | Evasiveness, reluctance, confidence on specific topics |
| Motive/Bias | Relationship factors affecting reliability |
| Corroboration | Statements supported by independent evidence |
5. Exculpatory / Inculpatory Assessment
| Category | Statement/Fact | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Exculpatory | ... | ... |
| Inculpatory | ... | ... |
| Ambiguous | ... | ... |
6. Follow-Up & Recommendations
- Additional witnesses identified (name, contact, expected knowledge)
- Documents to obtain
- Topics requiring re-interview or clarification
- Investigative leads generated
- Areas needing corroboration
Pitfalls & Checks
- Objectivity — Distinguish interviewee statements, interviewer observations, and analytical assessments. Label each.
- Discoverability — Assume the summary may be disclosed. No speculation, no strategy, no mental impressions beyond factual observations.
- Privilege — Mark header with work-product designation. Do not embed legal strategy.
- Precision — Use exact names, dates, amounts. Flag approximations with
[approx.]. - Verbatim quotes — Use for admissions, denials, key characterizations, and potential impeachment material. Include surrounding context.
- Neutral tone — Factual language only. Label legal conclusions as analysis.