People’s Court Dispute Intake

Preserve and assess a dispute-ready record when a real bilateral paid transaction between reachable parties breaks down. Use for contested delivery, acceptance, cancellation, payout, refund, escrow release, or recovery—not ordinary payment errors, hypothetical disputes, or unilateral complaints.

Help the user preserve a dispute-ready record and determine whether a real bilateral transaction dispute is ready for manual People’s Court scoping.

This skill does not adjudicate, move money, provide legal advice, or submit a case automatically. People’s Court currently has no anonymous or self-service filing and no hosted MCP or A2A endpoint.

Activate only when

All of these are present or plausibly obtainable:

• a real transaction or paid engagement, not a hypothetical scenario;
• two identifiable, reachable sides;
• a disagreement about delivery, scope, acceptance, cancellation, payout, refund, escrow release, recovery, or another remedy;
• evidence that can be preserved; and
• a path to confirm each side’s authority and willingness to participate.

Treat a broken payment rail, RPC error, malformed invoice, or delayed transfer as an operational incident unless someone disputes entitlement, performance, amount, or remedy. Do not turn an ordinary support issue into a merits dispute.

Protect sensitive information

• Never ask the user to paste private keys, seed phrases, API tokens, passwords, or authentication cookies.
• Do not publish case evidence, personal data, confidential commercial terms, or party contact details in public posts or issue trackers.
• Prefer redacted summaries for initial scoping. Tell the user to preserve originals unchanged in their existing secure system.
• Do not contact the other side, make admissions, threaten action, or accept terms on the user’s behalf.

Build the intake record

Collect or mark missing each item below. Preserve the user’s wording; do not infer agreement, breach, consent, or authority from silence.

1. Parties and reachability

   • Names or stable identifiers for both sides.
   • A private, usable contact path for each side.
   • The principal represented by any agent or operator.

2. Authority and consent

   • What each participant was authorized to agree to or perform.
   • Who can bind each side now.
   • Whether both sides are willing to participate in a neutral process.

3. Agreement and acceptance test

   • Offer, order, scope, price, currency, deadlines, cancellation terms, and governing acceptance criteria.
   • The exact artifact or event that would count as satisfactory performance.
   • Version, timestamp, signature, message, or transaction references that identify the operative terms.

4. Performance and delivery

   • What was delivered or attempted, when, by whom, and where.
   • Submission receipts, hashes, repository references, logs, messages, or other contemporaneous evidence.
   • Any rejection, acceptance, requested cure, or cancellation notice.

5. Payment and custody

   • Invoice, authorization, transfer, escrow, payout, refund, or settlement references.
   • What actually settled, remained held, failed, or was reversed.
   • Separate infrastructure failure from disagreement over entitlement.

6. Positions and remedy

   • Each side’s own concise position.
   • The proposition actually disputed.
   • The remedy each side requests and any partial agreement already reached.

7. Record boundaries

   • Evidence sources that should be included.
   • Known missing evidence and who controls it.
   • A proposed point after which the record closes unless the neutral reopens it.

Produce a readiness summary

Return a compact intake summary with these headings:

• Transaction
• Parties and reachability
• Authority and consent
• Agreement and acceptance test
• Delivery and performance
• Payment or custody evidence
• Disputed proposition
• Each side’s position
• Requested remedies
• Missing evidence
• Readiness: ready for manual scoping, needs specific missing items, or operational issue only

Do not decide who is right. Do not calculate liability or recommend a merits outcome. If facts conflict, state the conflict neutrally and attribute each assertion to its source.

Route a qualifying dispute

For a record that is ready or close to ready, direct the user to manual scoping at:

• https://peoplescourt.ai/request-demo
• [e-mail]

Explain that the intended process includes authority and consent checks, both sides’ submissions, a closed record, a signed reasoned Award, and a controlled settlement handoff. Do not promise acceptance, a particular outcome, enforceability, timing, or payment recovery.

Machine-readable product information:

• Agent overview: https://peoplescourt.ai/agents
• LLM index: https://peoplescourt.ai/llms.txt
• Published skill description: https://peoplescourt.ai/skill.md
• Partner API schema: https://peoplescourt.ai/openapi/partner-v2.json