Story and chronology
What happened, told as a story, then a timeline in ascending order.
Plugin · experimental release 0.6.0 · CC BY 4.0
Iliada
Dispute analysis engine
Iliada assesses a dispute. It will not tell you who is right in law. It tells you what the matter really is, how strongly you stand, what you are missing, what each route costs, and whether and how you can walk out of the conflict.
Why it is called Iliada
Most people think the Iliad is an epic about the fall of Troy. It is not. Troy does not fall in it.
The epic opens with two men quarrelling over honour. Achilles and Agamemnon nominally fight over a captive woman, in truth over which of them ranks higher. That quarrel grows a chain of consequences that kills people who had nothing to do with the original wrong. And the epic does not end in victory. It ends with Priam, father of the slain Hector, walking at night into the enemy camp to beg for his son's body, and Achilles handing it over.
That is the anatomy of a dispute, not the scenery of a war. Hence the name.
The document you get does not mention Homer once. The method is scaffolding, not decoration.
The output — six sections
Parties, claims and versions
For each side two things: the declared claim, and an estimate of the real interest its conduct points to. Plus its version of the matter, including the part where you are the villain.
Claims, evidence and gaps
A table pairing every claim with the evidence for it. Where there is none, it says “missing”. A blank cell is not allowed.
Strengths, risks and scenarios
At least three routes, each with an estimated chance, upside, cost and expected value, including the formula the number came from.
Recommended course of action
One sentence, why this one rather than the strongest alternative, and concrete steps.
Price of the conflict and settlement window
Mandatory. Without it the document does not pass the checks.
The sixth section is the whole point
A standard case assessment ends with a recommendation. Iliada ends differently, and that is deliberate.
The price of going on says what it costs to continue. Not just the court fee and the lawyer, but the things nobody invoices: two employees who will give evidence and then keep working with the other side. A customer you share. Your standing in a trade where everyone knows everyone. Two years of attention the dispute takes from you even while nothing is happening. And the same from the other side's point of view, because their price is your leverage.
The settlement window says when and how you can walk out of the conflict. Not the line “we recommend considering an amicable resolution”, which anyone can drop in to have something there. Concretely: when the window is open, what it costs each side in face, who makes the approach, and what conceding costs you.
Settlements rarely fail over the amount. They fail because one side would have to admit it was wrong all along. The assessment therefore names how each side can move without capitulating.
The section describes both prices, not only the price of the dispute. It is not pressure to concede. You decide, and you are entitled to buy yourself a fight as long as you know what you are paying for.
The citation gate
Iliada has no library of statutes and deliberately does not cite law
When a tool has nothing to check against, a citation from memory is just a confident-sounding guess. And a confident-sounding guess is exactly how an invented section number gets into a document. So the rule is: wherever an assessment refers to a statute, a deadline or a court decision, it carries a tag saying whether anyone checked it.
[UNVERIFIED]- Nobody checked it. Do not rest a decision on it.
[TO VERIFY: who, by when]- A named person has to check it. It is on the list at the end.
[VERIFIED: source, date]- Checked, with the source and the date next to it.
A reference without a tag does not make it into the document. Good intentions do not enforce that, a program does: it checks the document and refuses to let it out. Before delivery the document passes seventeen checks. The chronology has to ascend, every scenario's formula has to add up, no blank cell where evidence belongs, the sixth section cannot be missing, no promises of outcome. If a check finds a problem, the document is not delivered.
That sounds like a missing feature and it is the main feature. A tool with no library that cited sections would be inventing them. And an invented section that sounds right is the most expensive thing AI can hand you.
What Iliada does not do
- It does not do the law for you. It will not tell you what a section says, what the deadline is, or how a court ruled. It tags that and sends it to you or your local counsel. You know the law; Iliada brings the structure.
- It does not draft for the other side and does not draft filings. It produces a decision about what to do with the matter.
- It is not legal services. Every country has its own rules about who may provide them. This is a tool for the person doing that work, not a replacement for them.
Author's note
You will adapt it anyway
Iliada is a demonstration of how far work with AI can be pushed. Every lawyer, and in fact anyone able and willing to use it, will adapt it to themselves anyway. As they should.
Building your own verification layer and keeping your own judgement is within anyone's reach. With AI's help, certainly. So is wiring in the statutes you need, whether as an MCP server or simply held verbatim on disk. And if a function is missing, go ahead and build it.
Data protection is for each of you to work out. All I can recommend is to comply with the law, which means yes, you have to read the terms of every service you use.
One last recommendation. Because everyone's practice works a little differently, build your own knowledge base. And keep your plugins alive, so that they do not age with the model they were born with.
And once it starts saving you time, go and come up with something that raises the quality of legal services and how they feel to the people using them.
Download — release 0.6.0
Download the plugin
Experimental release. Use and output are the user's responsibility. Iliada does not give legal advice, and its assessment is input to a decision, not the decision. Read what the tool does not do before you point it at a live matter.
For Claude Code
iliada-claude-0.6.0.zip
The source version. Skills, runtime scripts, documentation and worked examples.
Download · 176 kBFor Codex
iliada-codex-0.6.0.zip
A package for a local Codex marketplace, installer included. Identical in content to the source.
Download · 172 kBLicensed CC BY 4.0. You may use Iliada on client matters, adapt it to your jurisdiction, translate it, and build a paid service on it. Credit the source and mark what you changed. Full licence text ↗
Installation
Claude Code
Unzip it. You get a folder iliada-claude-0.6.0 holding the plugin and
its marketplace entry. Then, inside Claude Code:
/plugin marketplace add ~/Downloads/iliada-claude-0.6.0
/plugin install iliada@legaltocode
Slash commands only work inside Claude Code in the terminal. From a shell they are
claude plugin marketplace add … and claude plugin install ….
Point the path at where you unzipped, that is the folder containing
.claude-plugin, not that folder itself.
Codex
Unzip it and run the installer inside. It copies the plugin to
~/plugins/iliada and writes the marketplace entry.
cd iliada-codex
./install.sh
Restart Codex and enable Iliada in local plugins. To confirm the install,
python3 ~/plugins/iliada/runtime/plugin_health_check.py should exit
without an error.
Running it
Nothing special. You write what you need: Assess this dispute for me. Is it worth suing? Where do we stand? Should we settle? Rerun the assessment, the expert report came in.
The plugin's own instructions are written in Czech. That does not limit anything: it works in English end to end, produces English documents, and its checks report in the language of the document. The Czech instructions are the single copy of the method; a second copy in a second language would drift from the first, and no program can check that two texts still say the same thing.