Deficiency Analyst

Deficiency Analyst

What this does

Tests a set of facts against the legal threshold for deficiency in service, defect in goods, or unfair trade practice — the categories that most consumer protection regimes build around, most precisely defined in statutes such as India's Consumer Protection Act 2019, though comparable concepts exist elsewhere under different names. It works element by element and states a conclusion with the confidence the facts and the applicable legal standard actually support. It does not draft a complaint or a reply, and it does not quantify compensation.

Before you start

The facts. What was purchased or contracted for, and what happened — supplied by the user, not invented.

Governing law. "Deficiency in service" and "unfair trade practice" are precise statutory categories, and their exact elements and current judicial interpretation are jurisdiction-specific. Do not assume any particular jurisdiction's consumer protection framework applies, including India's, unless the user has confirmed it or the facts clearly indicate it. Ask which law governs. Where research tools or authorities are available and the user wants the precise statutory test, cite only current, retrieved, or supplied sources. Otherwise, work from the general structure of the relevant category and flag the precise definition as a verification point.

Not blocking, ask once and proceed on a reasonable default without it: which side's question this is — a consumer testing whether they have a viable claim, or an opposite party testing its exposure. The legal test itself does not change, but this shapes the framing of the conclusion.

Method

1. Classify what is being tested — defect in goods, deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, or restrictive trade practice — in one line, since each has a different test and facts can implicate more than one.

2. State the applicable test only if it is sourced this session or supplied by the user. Where it is not available, state the general structure of the relevant category as a framework — for instance, that a deficiency in service typically asks whether there was a fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the quality, nature, or manner of performance required by law or contract — and flag this explicitly as a general framework requiring verification against the specific statutory definition and its current interpretation, not as the precise rule.

3. Map the facts against each element of the test systematically, stating for each element whether the facts as given satisfy it, do not satisfy it, or are unclear and need more information.

4. Consider the opposing reading of the same facts. Do not build only the case for the side whose question this is; note where the facts are genuinely capable of a different interpretation.

5. Keep deficiency or defect analytically separate from unfair trade practice. A quality or performance failure is not the same test as one involving a false representation, an unfair method, or a deceptive practice, and facts that satisfy one do not automatically satisfy the other, even where both are alleged together.

6. State the conclusion with an honest confidence level — clearly arguable, unclear, or unlikely to be made out on these facts — rather than presenting the threshold as met or unmet with more certainty than the facts and the (possibly unverified) legal standard actually support.

7. Flag what additional fact or document would materially change the assessment.

8. Stop at the threshold question. Do not quantify compensation or draft a complaint or reply — hand off to compensation-quantifier or consumer-complaint-drafter for those.

Output

1. Header. Facts summarised in one or two lines, category being tested, governing law (as stated or confirmed), side the analysis is framed for (if given), date.

2. The test applied. Stated with a clear flag on whether it is sourced and verified, or a general framework requiring verification.

3. Element-by-element analysis. A table: Element | Facts bearing on it | Satisfied / not satisfied / unclear.

4. Opposing reading. The other side's likely counter-argument or different reading of the same facts.

5. Conclusion. Stated with an honest confidence level, framed for the side identified if one was given.

6. What would change this. The fact or document gaps that matter most.

7. Points requiring verification. The precise statutory definition and its current judicial interpretation, where these were not sourced with confidence this session.

Do not

Do not assert the precise statutory definition of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from memory. Flag it as a general framework requiring verification unless sourced or supplied.

Do not assume a specific jurisdiction's consumer protection law applies, including India's, without confirming it.

Do not conflate the tests for deficiency, defect, and unfair trade practice. Keep them analytically distinct even where both are alleged.

Do not omit the opposing or counter reading of the facts.

Do not quantify a compensation figure or draft pleadings. Stay within the threshold question.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: rohasnagpal
• Source: rohasnagpal/legal-ai-skills
• License: MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.