Prompt file imported from kalroqix/Khalid (.github/prompts/analyze-saudi-labor-dispute.prompt.md). Copyright stays with the author.

Analyze Saudi Labor Dispute Workflow

Name: analyze-saudi-labor-dispute
Author: kalroqix

Overview

This workflow is for Saudi labor dispute and HR/disciplinary file analysis inside the Khalid framework.

It should be used when the task requires:

careful document extraction from Arabic HR/labor records
Arabic RTL preservation
chronology building across the employment relationship
evidence mapping across notices, minutes, warnings, and decisions
contradiction analysis across overlapping records
procedural fairness analysis of disciplinary steps
cautious Arabic-first formal wording suitable for objections, grievances, or labor office submissions

This workflow must preserve the distinction between:

document extraction
research and validation
legal analysis

It must not convert suspicion into proof and must not assume conclusions that the Saudi-context record does not support.

Step 1: Identify the Source Package

Action: Determine what HR/labor material exists and what state it is in.

Check:

What files are included? (contracts, warnings, minutes, notices, payslips, attendance, emails)
Are they PDFs, images, screenshots, exported emails, or manually transcribed text?
Are the files original, scanned, re-exported, or forwarded copies?
Is extraction already complete, partially complete, or not started?
Are there multiple versions of the same document (draft vs. signed, Arabic vs. English)?
Are attachments, appendices, signatures, stamps, or referenced documents missing?
Are there gaps in the employment chronology (hiring, warnings, investigation, termination)?
Is there any visible issue with quality, structure, or completeness?

Output:

Create a Source Package Summary including:

file types
number of documents
known gaps across the employment timeline
whether extraction is needed
whether version comparison may be required
whether signatures, stamps, or distribution references are missing

Step 2: Run Document Extraction and Validation First

Action: Use Document Research Agent before any legal analysis begins.

Required extraction rules:

Preserve Arabic right-to-left order
Prefer native PDF extraction before OCR
Use OCR only when needed
Keep formatting, section order, and document hierarchy where possible
Preserve dates, names, job titles, references, amounts, and official titles exactly
Preserve reference numbers, memo numbers, and registry identifiers verbatim
Do not guess unclear Arabic text without marking uncertainty

Required content separation:

For extracted material, classify content as:

Verified Extracted Text
Interpreted Text
Uncertain Fragments

Also record:

OCR limitations
metadata uncertainty
partial pages
weak scan quality
mixed Arabic/English directionality issues
missing pages, attachments, or signatures
suspected version differences (e.g., draft vs. final warning)
suspected backdating or inconsistent date formats

Output:

Create an Extraction and Validation Summary containing:

extraction method used
confidence level
key text blocks extracted
unclear sections
any structure, metadata, or signature concerns

Step 3: Build the Employment Chronology

Action: Construct a clean timeline of the employment relationship and dispute.

Extract and organize:

Chronology rules:

Prefer exact dates over approximate phrases
Preserve both Hijri (هجري) and Gregorian (ميلادي) dates when present
Mark date ambiguity clearly
Separate document date from event date when they differ
Separate creation date, send date, signature date, and acknowledgment date where relevant
Identify missing chronology links explicitly (e.g., warning referenced but not produced)

Output:

Create a Chronology Table with:

date / period (Hijri + Gregorian where available)
event
actor (employee, manager, HR, investigation committee, legal, external body)
supporting record
confidence level
notes on ambiguity, missing links, or backdating concerns

Step 4: Map the Evidence

Action: Build a structured evidence inventory for the labor file.

Map:

contracts and addenda
job descriptions and KPIs
warnings and disciplinary notices
investigation minutes and statements
witness statements
attendance, biometric, and access logs
payroll and deductions
email and messaging records
official correspondence and stamped letters
signatures, stamps, and distribution references
missing items
contradictions between records

For each evidence item, identify:

what it is
what it proves directly
what it may suggest
what weakens it
whether it is signed, dated, stamped, complete, revised, partial, or uncertain
whether it supports chronology, authorship, circulation, content, procedure, or quantum

Contradiction mapping:

When two or more records differ, identify:

exact contradiction
where it appears
whether it affects credibility, timing, authorship, procedure, or legal framing
whether the contradiction is proven or only suspected

Output:

Create an Evidence Map with:

item name
type
evidentiary value
weaknesses
linked contradictions
missing related material

Step 5: Procedural Fairness Analysis

Action: Examine the disciplinary process for procedural integrity, without asserting specific legal rulings.

Examine, where the record allows:

Discipline rules:

Do not assert violations of specific Saudi statutory articles unless the record directly supports them
Frame procedural concerns as observations on the record, not legal verdicts
Keep wording evidence-bounded

Output:

Create a Procedural Fairness Observations section listing:

each procedural concern
what in the record supports it
what is missing that would confirm or rebut it
confidence level

Step 6: Hand Over to Arabic Legal Analyst

Action: After extraction, chronology, evidence mapping, and procedural observations are done, use Arabic Legal Analyst.

The legal analysis must clearly separate:

Verified Facts
Plausible Inferences
Unresolved Points

Handover rule:

Do not let legal analysis begin from raw or unclear source material without noting the extraction status.

If extraction quality or provenance is weak, that weakness must remain visible inside the legal analysis.

Output:

Prepare a Legal Analysis Input Summary for the Arabic Legal Analyst containing:

validated facts
chronology summary
evidence map
contradictions
procedural fairness observations
extraction limitations
unresolved record gaps

Step 7: Assess Legal Significance Carefully

Action: Evaluate the legal significance without overstating certainty.

Assess, where relevant:

procedural fairness weaknesses
denial of access to evidence or inability to respond
evidentiary weakness of the employer's stated reason
contradiction significance across records
authorship/provenance weakness (unsigned, unstamped, undated)
document-integrity concerns (suspected backdating, altered versions)
administrative implications of procedural gaps
labor implications of an unsupported termination or disciplinary decision
credibility impact of contradictions
significance of missing attachments, missing minutes, or missing chronology links
end-of-service and entitlement exposure where the record allows

Discipline rules:

Do not convert suspicion into proof
Do not assume legal classification that the record does not support
Do not invent specific Saudi statutory outcomes without support
Keep conclusions proportional to the evidence
Make uncertainty visible, not hidden

Output:

Create a Legal Significance Summary showing:

what matters legally or procedurally
why it matters
what supports that significance
what remains too weak or incomplete

Step 8: Produce Structured Final Output

Action: Generate the final analysis in this exact structure:

1. Verified Facts

include only what is directly supported by the record

2. Plausible Inferences

include cautious reasoned conclusions that are not fully proven

3. Unresolved Points

list contradictions, missing items, ambiguities, and evidentiary gaps

4. Procedural Fairness Observations

summarize the process concerns supported by the record

5. Legal Significance / Why It Matters

explain why the strongest points matter legally or procedurally

6. Top 3 Critical Points

identify only the three most outcome-relevant points

7. What Proves Each Point

state the strongest supporting material for each critical point

8. What Is Still Missing

state what additional document, signature, stamp, metadata, testimony, chronology link, or attachment would materially strengthen each point

9. Formal Wording

provide concise Arabic-first wording suitable for:
- internal objection to a disciplinary decision
- grievance letter
- labor office submission summary
- internal memo
- case-preparation note

Step 9: Formal Wording Rules

Action: Make the closing wording usable in serious Saudi labor-style drafting.

Formal wording standards:

Arabic-first
restrained
evidence-based
memo-ready
not exaggerated
not conclusory beyond the record
preserves legally meaningful Arabic wording
suitable for sensitive labor/HR workflows in a Saudi workplace context

The final wording must:

reflect the actual evidence strength
avoid certainty inflation
avoid casual language
avoid asserting specific statutory violations without support
remain usable for follow-up drafting by a qualified legal professional

Required Quality Rules

Before finalizing, verify all of the following:

Output Format

Use this final output structure:

Source Package Summary

Extraction and Validation Summary

Chronology Table

Evidence Map

Procedural Fairness Observations

Verified Facts

Plausible Inferences

Unresolved Points

Legal Significance / Why It Matters

Top 3 Critical Points

What Proves Each Point

What Is Still Missing

Formal Wording

Example Use Case

User:
"Use Document Research Agent to extract this Saudi HR disciplinary file, then use Arabic Legal Analyst to prepare a cautious summary for an objection to a termination decision."

Workflow should:

inspect the HR/labor file set
extract and validate Arabic content, preserving Hijri and Gregorian dates
preserve RTL order
separate verified extraction from uncertain fragments
build the employment chronology
map evidence, signatures, stamps, and contradictions
record procedural fairness observations
hand over to Arabic Legal Analyst
produce a structured Arabic-first labor dispute summary with formal wording

Limitations

This workflow belongs to a GitHub Copilot agent framework, not a standalone legal platform
It does not replace licensed legal advice from a Saudi-qualified lawyer
It does not assume live access to Saudi labor databases, court systems, or official registries
It does not issue statutory rulings or definitive legal classifications
It must remain evidence-aware and uncertainty-aware at every stage

Created: 2026-04-21 | Khalid Saudi Labor Dispute Analysis Workflow

# Analyze Saudi Labor Dispute Workflow ## Overview This workflow is for **Saudi labor dispute and HR/disciplinary file analysis** inside the Khalid framework. It should be used when the task requires: - careful document extraction from Arabic HR/labor records - Arabic RTL preservation - chronology building across the employment relationship - evidence mapping across notices, minutes, warnings, and decisions - contradiction analysis across overlapping records - procedural fairness analysis of disciplinary steps - cautious Arabic-first formal wording suitable for objections, grievances, or labor office submissions This workflow must preserve the distinction between: 1. **document extraction** 2. **research and validation** 3. **legal analysis** It must not convert suspicion into proof and must not assume conclusions that the Saudi-context record does not support. --- ## Step 1: Identify the Source Package **Action:** Determine what HR/labor material exists and what state it is in. ### Check: - [ ] What files are included? (contracts, warnings, minutes, notices, payslips, attendance, emails) - [ ] Are they PDFs, images, screenshots, exported emails, or manually transcribed text? - [ ] Are the files original, scanned, re-exported, or forwarded copies? - [ ] Is extraction already complete, partially complete, or not started? - [ ] Are there multiple versions of the same document (draft vs. signed, Arabic vs. English)? - [ ] Are attachments, appendices, signatures, stamps, or referenced documents missing? - [ ] Are there gaps in the employment chronology (hiring, warnings, investigation, termination)? - [ ] Is there any visible issue with quality, structure, or completeness? ### Output: Create a **Source Package Summary** including: - file types - number of documents - known gaps across the employment timeline - whether extraction is needed - whether version comparison may be required - whether signatures, stamps, or distribution references are missing --- ## Step 2: Run Document Extraction and Validation First **Action:** Use **Document Research Agent** before any legal analysis begins. ### Required extraction rules: - Preserve Arabic right-to-left order - Prefer native PDF extraction before OCR - Use OCR only when needed - Keep formatting, section order, and document hierarchy where possible - Preserve dates, names, job titles, references, amounts, and official titles exactly - Preserve reference numbers, memo numbers, and registry identifiers verbatim - Do not guess unclear Arabic text without marking uncertainty ### Required content separation: For extracted material, classify content as: - **Verified Extracted Text** - **Interpreted Text** - **Uncertain Fragments** ### Also record: - OCR limitations - metadata uncertainty - partial pages - weak scan quality - mixed Arabic/English directionality issues - missing pages, attachments, or signatures - suspected version differences (e.g., draft vs. final warning) - suspected backdating or inconsistent date formats ### Output: Create an **Extraction and Validation Summary** containing: - extraction method used - confidence level - key text blocks extracted - unclear sections - any structure, metadata, or signature concerns --- ## Step 3: Build the Employment Chronology **Action:** Construct a clean timeline of the employment relationship and dispute. ### Extract and organize: - [ ] hiring date and contract type - [ ] role changes, transfers, promotions - [ ] performance reviews and KPI records - [ ] attendance and leave records - [ ] warnings (verbal, written, final) - [ ] complaints raised by or against the employee - [ ] investigation committee formation and minutes - [ ] hearing dates and responses submitted - [ ] disciplinary decisions - [ ] suspension, salary hold, or benefits change - [ ] termination notice and end-of-service calculation - [ ] labor office / GOSI / related filings referenced - [ ] correspondence dates (creation, send, acknowledgment) ### Chronology rules: - Prefer exact dates over approximate phrases - Preserve both Hijri (هجري) and Gregorian (ميلادي) dates when present - Mark date ambiguity clearly - Separate document date from event date when they differ - Separate creation date, send date, signature date, and acknowledgment date where relevant - Identify missing chronology links explicitly (e.g., warning referenced but not produced) ### Output: Create a **Chronology Table** with: - date / period (Hijri + Gregorian where available) - event - actor (employee, manager, HR, investigation committee, legal, external body) - supporting record - confidence level - notes on ambiguity, missing links, or backdating concerns --- ## Step 4: Map the Evidence **Action:** Build a structured evidence inventory for the labor file. ### Map: - contracts and addenda - job descriptions and KPIs - warnings and disciplinary notices - investigation minutes and statements - witness statements - attendance, biometric, and access logs - payroll and deductions - email and messaging records - official correspondence and stamped letters - signatures, stamps, and distribution references - missing items - contradictions between records ### For each evidence item, identify: - what it is - what it proves directly - what it may suggest - what weakens it - whether it is signed, dated, stamped, complete, revised, partial, or uncertain - whether it supports chronology, authorship, circulation, content, procedure, or quantum ### Contradiction mapping: When two or more records differ, identify: - exact contradiction - where it appears - whether it affects credibility, timing, authorship, procedure, or legal framing - whether the contradiction is proven or only suspected ### Output: Create an **Evidence Map** with: - item name - type - evidentiary value - weaknesses - linked contradictions - missing related material --- ## Step 5: Procedural Fairness Analysis **Action:** Examine the disciplinary process for procedural integrity, without asserting specific legal rulings. ### Examine, where the record allows: - [ ] whether the employee received clear written notice of the allegations - [ ] whether the employee was given a meaningful opportunity to respond - [ ] whether the employee had access to the evidence used against them - [ ] whether an investigation committee was formed and properly constituted - [ ] whether statements were recorded, signed, and shared - [ ] whether warnings were issued in sequence and acknowledged - [ ] whether the decision-maker was distinct from the investigator - [ ] whether timelines between notice, hearing, and decision are reasonable - [ ] whether the stated reason for any decision matches the evidentiary record - [ ] whether required internal approvals, signatures, or stamps are present ### Discipline rules: - Do not assert violations of specific Saudi statutory articles unless the record directly supports them - Frame procedural concerns as **observations on the record**, not legal verdicts - Keep wording evidence-bounded ### Output: Create a **Procedural Fairness Observations** section listing: - each procedural concern - what in the record supports it - what is missing that would confirm or rebut it - confidence level --- ## Step 6: Hand Over to Arabic Legal Analyst **Action:** After extraction, chronology, evidence mapping, and procedural observations are done, use **Arabic Legal Analyst**. The legal analysis must clearly separate: 1. **Verified Facts** 2. **Plausible Inferences** 3. **Unresolved Points** ### Handover rule: Do not let legal analysis begin from raw or unclear source material without noting the extraction status. If extraction quality or provenance is weak, that weakness must remain visible inside the legal analysis. ### Output: Prepare a **Legal Analysis Input Summary** for the Arabic Legal Analyst containing: - validated facts - chronology summary - evidence map - contradictions - procedural fairness observations - extraction limitations - unresolved record gaps --- ## Step 7: Assess Legal Significance Carefully **Action:** Evaluate the legal significance without overstating certainty. ### Assess, where relevant: - procedural fairness weaknesses - denial of access to evidence or inability to respond - evidentiary weakness of the employer's stated reason - contradiction significance across records - authorship/provenance weakness (unsigned, unstamped, undated) - document-integrity concerns (suspected backdating, altered versions) - administrative implications of procedural gaps - labor implications of an unsupported termination or disciplinary decision - credibility impact of contradictions - significance of missing attachments, missing minutes, or missing chronology links - end-of-service and entitlement exposure where the record allows ### Discipline rules: - Do not convert suspicion into proof - Do not assume legal classification that the record does not support - Do not invent specific Saudi statutory outcomes without support - Keep conclusions proportional to the evidence - Make uncertainty visible, not hidden ### Output: Create a **Legal Significance Summary** showing: - what matters legally or procedurally - why it matters - what supports that significance - what remains too weak or incomplete --- ## Step 8: Produce Structured Final Output **Action:** Generate the final analysis in this exact structure: ### 1. Verified Facts - include only what is directly supported by the record ### 2. Plausible Inferences - include cautious reasoned conclusions that are not fully proven ### 3. Unresolved Points - list contradictions, missing items, ambiguities, and evidentiary gaps ### 4. Procedural Fairness Observations - summarize the process concerns supported by the record ### 5. Legal Significance / Why It Matters - explain why the strongest points matter legally or procedurally ### 6. Top 3 Critical Points - identify only the three most outcome-relevant points ### 7. What Proves Each Point - state the strongest supporting material for each critical point ### 8. What Is Still Missing - state what additional document, signature, stamp, metadata, testimony, chronology link, or attachment would materially strengthen each point ### 9. Formal Wording - provide concise Arabic-first wording suitable for: - internal objection to a disciplinary decision - grievance letter - labor office submission summary - internal memo - case-preparation note --- ## Step 9: Formal Wording Rules **Action:** Make the closing wording usable in serious Saudi labor-style drafting. ### Formal wording standards: - Arabic-first - restrained - evidence-based - memo-ready - not exaggerated - not conclusory beyond the record - preserves legally meaningful Arabic wording - suitable for sensitive labor/HR workflows in a Saudi workplace context ### The final wording must: - reflect the actual evidence strength - avoid certainty inflation - avoid casual language - avoid asserting specific statutory violations without support - remain usable for follow-up drafting by a qualified legal professional --- ## Required Quality Rules Before finalizing, verify all of the following: - [ ] Arabic RTL order was preserved during extraction - [ ] Hijri and Gregorian dates were preserved where present - [ ] Extraction limitations were recorded clearly - [ ] Verified text is separated from interpreted text and uncertain fragments - [ ] Chronology is organized and source-linked - [ ] Evidence items are mapped individually - [ ] Contradictions are identified precisely - [ ] Procedural fairness concerns are framed as record-based observations - [ ] Legal analysis starts from validated material, not raw assumptions - [ ] Verified Facts, Plausible Inferences, and Unresolved Points are clearly separated - [ ] Legal significance is proportionate to the evidence - [ ] Final wording is Arabic-first, formal, restrained, and usable --- ## Output Format Use this final output structure: ### Source Package Summary - ... ### Extraction and Validation Summary - ... ### Chronology Table - ... ### Evidence Map - ... ### Procedural Fairness Observations - ... ### Verified Facts - ... ### Plausible Inferences - ... ### Unresolved Points - ... ### Legal Significance / Why It Matters - ... ### Top 3 Critical Points - ... ### What Proves Each Point - ... ### What Is Still Missing - ... ### Formal Wording - ... --- ## Example Use Case **User:** "Use Document Research Agent to extract this Saudi HR disciplinary file, then use Arabic Legal Analyst to prepare a cautious summary for an objection to a termination decision." **Workflow should:** 1. inspect the HR/labor file set 2. extract and validate Arabic content, preserving Hijri and Gregorian dates 3. preserve RTL order 4. separate verified extraction from uncertain fragments 5. build the employment chronology 6. map evidence, signatures, stamps, and contradictions 7. record procedural fairness observations 8. hand over to Arabic Legal Analyst 9. produce a structured Arabic-first labor dispute summary with formal wording --- ## Limitations - This workflow belongs to a **GitHub Copilot agent framework**, not a standalone legal platform - It does not replace licensed legal advice from a Saudi-qualified lawyer - It does not assume live access to Saudi labor databases, court systems, or official registries - It does not issue statutory rulings or definitive legal classifications - It must remain evidence-aware and uncertainty-aware at every stage --- **Created:** 2026-04-21 | **Khalid Saudi Labor Dispute Analysis Workflow**

{ "prompt": "# Analyze Saudi Labor Dispute Workflow\n\n## Overview\n\nThis workflow is for **Saudi labor dispute and HR/disciplinary file analysis** inside the Khalid framework.\n\nIt should be used when the task requires:\n- careful document extraction from Arabic HR/labor records\n- Arabic RTL preservation\n- chronology building across the employment relationship\n- evidence mapping across notices, minutes, warnings, and decisions\n- contradiction analysis across overlapping records\n- procedural fairness analysis of disciplinary steps\n- cautious Arabic-first formal wording suitable for objections, grievances, or labor office submissions\n\nThis workflow must preserve the distinction between:\n1. **document extraction**\n2. **research and validation**\n3. **legal analysis**\n\nIt must not convert suspicion into proof and must not assume conclusions that the Saudi-context record does not support.\n\n---\n\n## Step 1: Identify the Source Package\n\n**Action:** Determine what HR/labor material exists and what state it is in.\n\n### Check:\n- [ ] What files are included? (contracts, warnings, minutes, notices, payslips, attendance, emails)\n- [ ] Are they PDFs, images, screenshots, exported emails, or manually transcribed text?\n- [ ] Are the files original, scanned, re-exported, or forwarded copies?\n- [ ] Is extraction already complete, partially complete, or not started?\n- [ ] Are there multiple versions of the same document (draft vs. signed, Arabic vs. English)?\n- [ ] Are attachments, appendices, signatures, stamps, or referenced documents missing?\n- [ ] Are there gaps in the employment chronology (hiring, warnings, investigation, termination)?\n- [ ] Is there any visible issue with quality, structure, or completeness?\n\n### Output:\nCreate a **Source Package Summary** including:\n- file types\n- number of documents\n- known gaps across the employment timeline\n- whether extraction is needed\n- whether version comparison may be required\n- whether signatures, stamps, or distribution references are missing\n\n---\n\n## Step 2: Run Document Extraction and Validation First\n\n**Action:** Use **Document Research Agent** before any legal analysis begins.\n\n### Required extraction rules:\n- Preserve Arabic right-to-left order\n- Prefer native PDF extraction before OCR\n- Use OCR only when needed\n- Keep formatting, section order, and document hierarchy where possible\n- Preserve dates, names, job titles, references, amounts, and official titles exactly\n- Preserve reference numbers, memo numbers, and registry identifiers verbatim\n- Do not guess unclear Arabic text without marking uncertainty\n\n### Required content separation:\nFor extracted material, classify content as:\n- **Verified Extracted Text**\n- **Interpreted Text**\n- **Uncertain Fragments**\n\n### Also record:\n- OCR limitations\n- metadata uncertainty\n- partial pages\n- weak scan quality\n- mixed Arabic/English directionality issues\n- missing pages, attachments, or signatures\n- suspected version differences (e.g., draft vs. final warning)\n- suspected backdating or inconsistent date formats\n\n### Output:\nCreate an **Extraction and Validation Summary** containing:\n- extraction method used\n- confidence level\n- key text blocks extracted\n- unclear sections\n- any structure, metadata, or signature concerns\n\n---\n\n## Step 3: Build the Employment Chronology\n\n**Action:** Construct a clean timeline of the employment relationship and dispute.\n\n### Extract and organize:\n- [ ] hiring date and contract type\n- [ ] role changes, transfers, promotions\n- [ ] performance reviews and KPI records\n- [ ] attendance and leave records\n- [ ] warnings (verbal, written, final)\n- [ ] complaints raised by or against the employee\n- [ ] investigation committee formation and minutes\n- [ ] hearing dates and responses submitted\n- [ ] disciplinary decisions\n- [ ] suspension, salary hold, or benefits change\n- [ ] termination notice and end-of-service calculation\n- [ ] labor office / GOSI / related filings referenced\n- [ ] correspondence dates (creation, send, acknowledgment)\n\n### Chronology rules:\n- Prefer exact dates over approximate phrases\n- Preserve both Hijri (هجري) and Gregorian (ميلادي) dates when present\n- Mark date ambiguity clearly\n- Separate document date from event date when they differ\n- Separate creation date, send date, signature date, and acknowledgment date where relevant\n- Identify missing chronology links explicitly (e.g., warning referenced but not produced)\n\n### Output:\nCreate a **Chronology Table** with:\n- date / period (Hijri + Gregorian where available)\n- event\n- actor (employee, manager, HR, investigation committee, legal, external body)\n- supporting record\n- confidence level\n- notes on ambiguity, missing links, or backdating concerns\n\n---\n\n## Step 4: Map the Evidence\n\n**Action:** Build a structured evidence inventory for the labor file.\n\n### Map:\n- contracts and addenda\n- job descriptions and KPIs\n- warnings and disciplinary notices\n- investigation minutes and statements\n- witness statements\n- attendance, biometric, and access logs\n- payroll and deductions\n- email and messaging records\n- official correspondence and stamped letters\n- signatures, stamps, and distribution references\n- missing items\n- contradictions between records\n\n### For each evidence item, identify:\n- what it is\n- what it proves directly\n- what it may suggest\n- what weakens it\n- whether it is signed, dated, stamped, complete, revised, partial, or uncertain\n- whether it supports chronology, authorship, circulation, content, procedure, or quantum\n\n### Contradiction mapping:\nWhen two or more records differ, identify:\n- exact contradiction\n- where it appears\n- whether it affects credibility, timing, authorship, procedure, or legal framing\n- whether the contradiction is proven or only suspected\n\n### Output:\nCreate an **Evidence Map** with:\n- item name\n- type\n- evidentiary value\n- weaknesses\n- linked contradictions\n- missing related material\n\n---\n\n## Step 5: Procedural Fairness Analysis\n\n**Action:** Examine the disciplinary process for procedural integrity, without asserting specific legal rulings.\n\n### Examine, where the record allows:\n- [ ] whether the employee received clear written notice of the allegations\n- [ ] whether the employee was given a meaningful opportunity to respond\n- [ ] whether the employee had access to the evidence used against them\n- [ ] whether an investigation committee was formed and properly constituted\n- [ ] whether statements were recorded, signed, and shared\n- [ ] whether warnings were issued in sequence and acknowledged\n- [ ] whether the decision-maker was distinct from the investigator\n- [ ] whether timelines between notice, hearing, and decision are reasonable\n- [ ] whether the stated reason for any decision matches the evidentiary record\n- [ ] whether required internal approvals, signatures, or stamps are present\n\n### Discipline rules:\n- Do not assert violations of specific Saudi statutory articles unless the record directly supports them\n- Frame procedural concerns as **observations on the record**, not legal verdicts\n- Keep wording evidence-bounded\n\n### Output:\nCreate a **Procedural Fairness Observations** section listing:\n- each procedural concern\n- what in the record supports it\n- what is missing that would confirm or rebut it\n- confidence level\n\n---\n\n## Step 6: Hand Over to Arabic Legal Analyst\n\n**Action:** After extraction, chronology, evidence mapping, and procedural observations are done, use **Arabic Legal Analyst**.\n\nThe legal analysis must clearly separate:\n\n1. **Verified Facts**\n2. **Plausible Inferences**\n3. **Unresolved Points**\n\n### Handover rule:\nDo not let legal analysis begin from raw or unclear source material without noting the extraction status.\n\nIf extraction quality or provenance is weak, that weakness must remain visible inside the legal analysis.\n\n### Output:\nPrepare a **Legal Analysis Input Summary** for the Arabic Legal Analyst containing:\n- validated facts\n- chronology summary\n- evidence map\n- contradictions\n- procedural fairness observations\n- extraction limitations\n- unresolved record gaps\n\n---\n\n## Step 7: Assess Legal Significance Carefully\n\n**Action:** Evaluate the legal significance without overstating certainty.\n\n### Assess, where relevant:\n- procedural fairness weaknesses\n- denial of access to evidence or inability to respond\n- evidentiary weakness of the employer's stated reason\n- contradiction significance across records\n- authorship/provenance weakness (unsigned, unstamped, undated)\n- document-integrity concerns (suspected backdating, altered versions)\n- administrative implications of procedural gaps\n- labor implications of an unsupported termination or disciplinary decision\n- credibility impact of contradictions\n- significance of missing attachments, missing minutes, or missing chronology links\n- end-of-service and entitlement exposure where the record allows\n\n### Discipline rules:\n- Do not convert suspicion into proof\n- Do not assume legal classification that the record does not support\n- Do not invent specific Saudi statutory outcomes without support\n- Keep conclusions proportional to the evidence\n- Make uncertainty visible, not hidden\n\n### Output:\nCreate a **Legal Significance Summary** showing:\n- what matters legally or procedurally\n- why it matters\n- what supports that significance\n- what remains too weak or incomplete\n\n---\n\n## Step 8: Produce Structured Final Output\n\n**Action:** Generate the final analysis in this exact structure:\n\n### 1. Verified Facts\n- include only what is directly supported by the record\n\n### 2. Plausible Inferences\n- include cautious reasoned conclusions that are not fully proven\n\n### 3. Unresolved Points\n- list contradictions, missing items, ambiguities, and evidentiary gaps\n\n### 4. Procedural Fairness Observations\n- summarize the process concerns supported by the record\n\n### 5. Legal Significance / Why It Matters\n- explain why the strongest points matter legally or procedurally\n\n### 6. Top 3 Critical Points\n- identify only the three most outcome-relevant points\n\n### 7. What Proves Each Point\n- state the strongest supporting material for each critical point\n\n### 8. What Is Still Missing\n- state what additional document, signature, stamp, metadata, testimony, chronology link, or attachment would materially strengthen each point\n\n### 9. Formal Wording\n- provide concise Arabic-first wording suitable for:\n - internal objection to a disciplinary decision\n - grievance letter\n - labor office submission summary\n - internal memo\n - case-preparation note\n\n---\n\n## Step 9: Formal Wording Rules\n\n**Action:** Make the closing wording usable in serious Saudi labor-style drafting.\n\n### Formal wording standards:\n- Arabic-first\n- restrained\n- evidence-based\n- memo-ready\n- not exaggerated\n- not conclusory beyond the record\n- preserves legally meaningful Arabic wording\n- suitable for sensitive labor/HR workflows in a Saudi workplace context\n\n### The final wording must:\n- reflect the actual evidence strength\n- avoid certainty inflation\n- avoid casual language\n- avoid asserting specific statutory violations without support\n- remain usable for follow-up drafting by a qualified legal professional\n\n---\n\n## Required Quality Rules\n\nBefore finalizing, verify all of the following:\n\n- [ ] Arabic RTL order was preserved during extraction\n- [ ] Hijri and Gregorian dates were preserved where present\n- [ ] Extraction limitations were recorded clearly\n- [ ] Verified text is separated from interpreted text and uncertain fragments\n- [ ] Chronology is organized and source-linked\n- [ ] Evidence items are mapped individually\n- [ ] Contradictions are identified precisely\n- [ ] Procedural fairness concerns are framed as record-based observations\n- [ ] Legal analysis starts from validated material, not raw assumptions\n- [ ] Verified Facts, Plausible Inferences, and Unresolved Points are clearly separated\n- [ ] Legal significance is proportionate to the evidence\n- [ ] Final wording is Arabic-first, formal, restrained, and usable\n\n---\n\n## Output Format\n\nUse this final output structure:\n\n### Source Package Summary\n- ...\n\n### Extraction and Validation Summary\n- ...\n\n### Chronology Table\n- ...\n\n### Evidence Map\n- ...\n\n### Procedural Fairness Observations\n- ...\n\n### Verified Facts\n- ...\n\n### Plausible Inferences\n- ...\n\n### Unresolved Points\n- ...\n\n### Legal Significance / Why It Matters\n- ...\n\n### Top 3 Critical Points\n- ...\n\n### What Proves Each Point\n- ...\n\n### What Is Still Missing\n- ...\n\n### Formal Wording\n- ...\n\n---\n\n## Example Use Case\n\n**User:** \n\"Use Document Research Agent to extract this Saudi HR disciplinary file, then use Arabic Legal Analyst to prepare a cautious summary for an objection to a termination decision.\"\n\n**Workflow should:**\n1. inspect the HR/labor file set\n2. extract and validate Arabic content, preserving Hijri and Gregorian dates\n3. preserve RTL order\n4. separate verified extraction from uncertain fragments\n5. build the employment chronology\n6. map evidence, signatures, stamps, and contradictions\n7. record procedural fairness observations\n8. hand over to Arabic Legal Analyst\n9. produce a structured Arabic-first labor dispute summary with formal wording\n\n---\n\n## Limitations\n\n- This workflow belongs to a **GitHub Copilot agent framework**, not a standalone legal platform\n- It does not replace licensed legal advice from a Saudi-qualified lawyer\n- It does not assume live access to Saudi labor databases, court systems, or official registries\n- It does not issue statutory rulings or definitive legal classifications\n- It must remain evidence-aware and uncertainty-aware at every stage\n\n---\n\n**Created:** 2026-04-21 | **Khalid Saudi Labor Dispute Analysis Workflow**", "variables": [], "notes": "Workflow for analyzing Saudi labor disputes, HR files, and disciplinary matters under Saudi workplace context. Coordinates Document Research Agent and Arabic Legal Analyst to build chronology, map evidence, surface contradictions, assess procedural fairness, and produce cautious Arabic-first formal wording.", "metadata": { "source": { "provider": "github-prompts", "repository": "https://github.com/kalroqix/Khalid", "path": ".github/prompts/analyze-saudi-labor-dispute.prompt.md", "ref": "034c738b0d11ad1267fcf8bcef0d1723397b4c0c", "url": "https://github.com/kalroqix/Khalid/blob/034c738b0d11ad1267fcf8bcef0d1723397b4c0c/.github/prompts/analyze-saudi-labor-dispute.prompt.md", "key": "kalroqix/Khalid/.github/prompts/analyze-saudi-labor-dispute.prompt.md" } } }

About

Analyze Saudi Labor Dispute Workflow

Overview

Step 1: Identify the Source Package

Check:

Output:

Step 2: Run Document Extraction and Validation First

Required extraction rules:

Required content separation:

Also record:

Output:

Step 3: Build the Employment Chronology

Extract and organize:

Chronology rules:

Output:

Step 4: Map the Evidence

Map:

For each evidence item, identify:

Contradiction mapping:

Output:

Step 5: Procedural Fairness Analysis

Examine, where the record allows:

Discipline rules:

Output:

Step 6: Hand Over to Arabic Legal Analyst

Handover rule:

Output:

Step 7: Assess Legal Significance Carefully

Assess, where relevant:

Discipline rules:

Output:

Step 8: Produce Structured Final Output

1. Verified Facts

2. Plausible Inferences

3. Unresolved Points

4. Procedural Fairness Observations

5. Legal Significance / Why It Matters

6. Top 3 Critical Points

7. What Proves Each Point

8. What Is Still Missing

9. Formal Wording

Step 9: Formal Wording Rules

Formal wording standards:

The final wording must:

Required Quality Rules

Output Format

Source Package Summary

Extraction and Validation Summary

Chronology Table

Evidence Map

Procedural Fairness Observations

Verified Facts

Plausible Inferences

Unresolved Points

Legal Significance / Why It Matters

Top 3 Critical Points

What Proves Each Point

What Is Still Missing

Formal Wording

Example Use Case

Limitations

Use it

Manifest

Reviews