diff --git a/skills/litigation-case-screener/SKILL.md b/skills/litigation-case-screener/SKILL.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..34796b6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/skills/litigation-case-screener/SKILL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,164 @@
+---
+name: litigation-funding-case-screener
+description: >
+  Structure a litigation funding assessment covering merits, quantum, enforceability,
+  budget, timeline, and funder return modelling. Use this skill when a user mentions
+  litigation funding, litigation finance, case assessment, third-party funding,
+  dispute funding, case screening, merits assessment, quantum analysis, claims
+  evaluation for funding, Burford, Omni Bridgeway, Harbour, or dispute resolution
+  investment. Also trigger when a lawyer or funder needs to evaluate whether a case
+  is suitable for external funding.
+---
+
+# Litigation Funding Case Screener
+
+Structure a case assessment for litigation funding decisions. This skill guides
+the analysis through the key dimensions funders evaluate — merits, quantum,
+enforceability, defendant's ability to pay, budget, timeline, and projected
+returns — producing a structured assessment that a funder's investment committee
+can review.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- A litigant is considering whether to seek third-party funding
+- A funder is screening a new case for investment
+- A law firm is preparing a funding application for a client
+- An in-house team needs to structure a case assessment for budget approval
+- You need to evaluate a portfolio of cases for funding suitability
+
+## Core Principle
+
+**Litigation funding is an investment decision, not a legal opinion.** The funder
+needs to assess risk-adjusted returns. A case with strong legal merits but an
+insolvent defendant is a bad investment. A case with uncertain merits but a
+massive quantum against a solvent sovereign may be attractive. This skill
+structures the commercial assessment alongside the legal analysis.
+
+## Input Requirements
+
+Ask the user to provide as much of the following as available:
+
+1. **Case summary** — parties, jurisdiction, cause of action, procedural history
+2. **Legal opinion** (if available) — counsel's assessment of merits
+3. **Quantum estimate** — the amount claimed and basis for calculation
+4. **Defendant profile** — identity, jurisdiction, financial position, assets
+5. **Budget estimate** — anticipated legal costs through each phase
+6. **Timeline estimate** — expected duration through trial/arbitration and appeal
+7. **Any existing offers** — settlement discussions, Part 36 offers, Calderbank letters
+
+## Assessment Framework
+
+### 1. Jurisdiction and Governing Law
+
+- **Jurisdiction(s):** Where will the case be heard? Is there a jurisdictional dispute?
+- **Governing law:** What law governs the substantive claims?
+- **Procedural framework:** Common law adversarial, civil law inquisitorial, arbitration rules (ICC, LCIA, SIAC, ICSID, UNCITRAL)
+- **Funding regulation:** Is third-party funding permitted in this jurisdiction? Any disclosure requirements? Champerty/maintenance risk?
+- **Costs regime:** Loser-pays (English rule), each-party-bears-own (American rule), or hybrid? Implications for ATE insurance.
+
+### 2. Merits Assessment
+
+Structure the merits analysis around:
+
+- **Cause(s) of action:** What legal theories support the claim? Rate each on a scale: Strong / Reasonable / Arguable / Weak
+- **Factual basis:** Is the factual foundation documented? Key evidence available? Witness availability?
+- **Legal precedent:** Is the legal position settled, developing, or novel? Key authorities?
+- **Defences anticipated:** What defences will the respondent raise? Limitation, contributory negligence, sovereign immunity, force majeure?
+- **Overall merits probability:** Assign a probability range (e.g., 60-70% on liability)
+
+### 3. Quantum Analysis
+
+- **Claimed amount:** The headline figure
+- **Basis of calculation:** Lost profits, wasted costs, diminution in value, restitution, specific performance
+- **Discount factors:** Probability of establishing each head of loss; mitigation arguments; contributory factors
+- **Expected value:** Claimed amount × probability of recovery on each head
+- **Interest:** Pre- and post-judgment interest rates and period
+- **Costs recovery:** Estimated recoverable costs if successful
+
+### 4. Enforceability
+
+- **Defendant identity:** Corporate, individual, sovereign entity?
+- **Defendant's financial position:** Revenue, assets, cash reserves, debt levels
+- **Asset traceability:** Where are the defendant's assets located? Are they susceptible to enforcement?
+- **Enforcement regime:** Is the judgment/award enforceable in the asset jurisdiction? New York Convention (arbitration), Hague Convention, bilateral treaties?
+- **Sovereign immunity:** If the defendant is a state entity, does sovereign immunity apply? Exceptions?
+- **Insolvency risk:** Is the defendant at risk of insolvency during the proceedings?
+
+### 5. Budget and Timeline
+
+Structure the budget in phases:
+
+| Phase | Activities | Estimated Cost | Duration |
+|-------|-----------|---------------|----------|
+| Pre-action | Investigation, evidence gathering, demand letter | $[amount] | [months] |
+| Pleadings | Filing, defence, reply | $[amount] | [months] |
+| Disclosure / Discovery | Document production, review, e-discovery | $[amount] | [months] |
+| Witness evidence | Statements, expert reports | $[amount] | [months] |
+| Trial / Hearing | Preparation, advocacy, post-hearing briefs | $[amount] | [months] |
+| Costs assessment | Detailed assessment if costs awarded | $[amount] | [months] |
+| Appeal (if applicable) | Grounds, hearing | $[amount] | [months] |
+| Enforcement | Asset tracing, enforcement proceedings | $[amount] | [months] |
+| **Total** | | **$[total]** | **[total months]** |
+
+### 6. Return Modelling
+
+Model the funder's return under different scenarios:
+
+| Scenario | Probability | Recovery | Funder's Share | Funder's Return | Multiple |
+|----------|------------|----------|---------------|----------------|----------|
+| Full win at trial | [%] | $[amount] | $[amount] | $[amount] | [x] |
+| Partial win | [%] | $[amount] | $[amount] | $[amount] | [x] |
+| Settlement (pre-trial) | [%] | $[amount] | $[amount] | $[amount] | [x] |
+| Loss at trial | [%] | $0 | $0 | -$[budget] | -1x |
+| **Expected value** | 100% | | | **$[weighted]** | **[x]** |
+
+Typical funder parameters:
+- Minimum return multiple: 3x on invested capital, or
+- Minimum IRR: 25-30% net
+- Minimum case size: $5M+ quantum (some funders: $10M+)
+- Maximum budget-to-quantum ratio: typically <1:10
+
+## Output Format
+
+```markdown
+# Litigation Funding Case Assessment
+
+## Case Overview
+- **Parties:** [Claimant] v [Respondent(s)]
+- **Jurisdiction:** [forum and governing law]
+- **Cause of Action:** [summary]
+- **Quantum Claimed:** [currency] [amount]
+- **Estimated Budget:** [currency] [amount]
+- **Estimated Duration:** [months/years]
+
+## Assessment Summary
+
+| Dimension | Rating | Confidence |
+|-----------|--------|-----------|
+| Merits | [Strong/Reasonable/Arguable/Weak] | [High/Medium/Low] |
+| Quantum | [Well-supported/Reasonable/Speculative] | [High/Medium/Low] |
+| Enforceability | [Strong/Moderate/Challenging] | [High/Medium/Low] |
+| Defendant solvency | [Strong/Adequate/Concerning] | [High/Medium/Low] |
+| Budget proportionality | [Proportionate/Acceptable/Stretched] | [High/Medium/Low] |
+
+## Investment Recommendation
+[PROCEED TO FULL DUE DILIGENCE / REQUEST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION / DECLINE]
+
+[Rationale — what makes this case attractive or unattractive as an investment]
+
+## Key Risks
+1. [Risk and mitigation]
+2. [Risk and mitigation]
+
+## Information Gaps
+[What additional information is needed before a funding decision]
+```
+
+## Important Notes
+
+- This skill structures the assessment process. Funding decisions require legal
+  expertise and commercial judgment.
+- Probability estimates should be supported by legal analysis, not assumed.
+- For adversarial verification of case merits claims — cross-referencing party
+  representations, precedent analysis, and quantum assumptions — see
+  [DiligenceWorks](https://diligenceworks.online).