# Opposite Party Reply Drafter > Drafts a reply or written statement to a consumer complaint on behalf of the opposite party — raising any threshold objection prominently, then addressing each allegation as admitted, denied with the client's own account, denied for insufficient knowledge, or qualified. Use this whenever a user has been served a consumer complaint and needs to respond — including phrasings like "draft our reply t… - **Type:** Skill - **Install:** `agentstack add skill-rohasnagpal-legal-ai-skills-opposite-party-reply-drafter` - **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior - **Seller:** [rohasnagpal](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/rohasnagpal) - **Installs:** 0 - **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills) - **Latest version:** 0.1.0 - **License:** MIT - **Upstream author:** [rohasnagpal](https://github.com/rohasnagpal) - **Source:** https://github.com/rohasnagpal/legal-ai-skills/tree/main/plugins/consumer/skills/opposite-party-reply-drafter ## Install ```sh agentstack add skill-rohasnagpal-legal-ai-skills-opposite-party-reply-drafter ``` Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent. ## About # Opposite Party Reply Drafter ## What this does Drafts the opposite party's reply to a consumer complaint: any threshold objection — jurisdiction, limitation, maintainability — raised prominently, then a response to every allegation, admitting, denying with the client's own account, denying for insufficient knowledge, or qualifying, exactly as the client instructs. It structures what the client actually says; it does not invent a defence or a fact the client has not given. ## Before you start **The complaint being replied to.** The actual text — there is no reply to draft without seeing exactly what was alleged. **The client's actual position on each allegation.** What is true, false, or partially true, from the client. This is blocking; the skill structures the client's account, it does not construct a defence from the allegations alone. **Which forum this reply is being filed before.** This affects format, procedural convention, and reply-timing rules. Ask; flag if not confirmed. Not blocking, ask once and proceed on what is instructed: **whether jurisdiction or limitation is being challenged as a threshold objection.** If so, this should be raised prominently and early rather than folded into the allegation-by-allegation response — ask so it can be structured that way from the start. ## Method **1. Read the whole complaint once before drafting anything.** A global point — lack of jurisdiction, limitation, non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties, the complaint not being maintainable in the form filed — can dispose of several allegations at once, and drafting allegation-by-allegation on a first pass misses this. **2. Raise any threshold objection first and prominently**, if the client wants one raised. Note that raising a threshold objection does not require abandoning a reply on the merits — a reply can do both, reserving the objection while still addressing the allegations. **3. List every allegation or numbered paragraph of the complaint before drafting any response**, matching the complaint's own numbering, so completeness can be checked directly against it. **4. State the client's position on each allegation precisely, using only what the client has instructed** — admitted, denied with the client's own account, denied for insufficient knowledge to admit or deny, or qualified. Do not invent a fact or a defence to fill a gap in the client's instructions. **5. Where an allegation is denied, give the client's own account of what happened, not a bare denial.** A bare denial carries less weight than a denial coupled with an affirmative account. **6. Keep factual admissions separate from legal characterisation.** Admitting that an item was delivered five days late is not the same as admitting deficiency in service — concede the fact if it is true, without conceding the legal conclusion the complainant draws from it. **7. State the client's own case or defence at the end** — what actually happened from their side, and any specific defence such as misuse, unauthorised modification, or a cause outside their control — only as instructed by the client, never invented to fill a gap. **8. Flag reply-timing or format requirements specific to the forum as a verification point** rather than assuming compliance. ## Output **1. Header.** Forum, complaint reference, opposite party (respondent) and complainant, date. **2. Preliminary objections, if any.** Jurisdiction, limitation, or maintainability, stated prominently and first. **3. Reply to allegations.** Numbered to match the complaint: admitted / denied with the client's own account / denied for insufficient knowledge / qualified. **4. Client's own case or defence.** **5. Relief sought.** Dismissal of the complaint, costs, or other relief, only as instructed. **6. Points requiring verification.** Forum-specific reply-timing or format rules, and anything resting on an unconfirmed legal characterisation. ## Do not Do not invent a fact or defence the client has not actually given. Do not concede a legal conclusion — deficiency, unfair trade practice — while admitting an underlying fact. Keep the two separate throughout. Do not omit a threshold objection the client wants raised, and do not bury it inside the allegation-by-allegation response. Do not assume reply-timing or format compliance with the forum's rules. Flag it as a point to verify. Do not leave an allegation unaddressed without flagging the risk to the user. ## Source & license This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code. - **Author:** [rohasnagpal](https://github.com/rohasnagpal) - **Source:** [rohasnagpal/legal-ai-skills](https://github.com/rohasnagpal/legal-ai-skills) - **License:** MIT Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above. ## Pricing - **Free** — Free ## Security capabilities Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access: - **Network access:** no - **Filesystem access:** no - **Shell / process execution:** no - **Environment & secrets:** no - **Dynamic code execution:** no *"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.* ## Versions - **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source. ## Links - Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-rohasnagpal-legal-ai-skills-opposite-party-reply-drafter - Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/rohasnagpal - Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse --- Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.