famlaw_v2/START_HERE.md

START HERE — Claude Code kickoff

You are picking up an in-progress build. Read in this order, then start the task at the bottom. Do not re-derive the design — it exists; follow it.

Read order (do this first)

1. CLAUDE.md — the operational brief and single source of truth. Read it fully. Pay special attention to:
   • §1 — the governing rule + the two gates + Claude's role as the quality-elevation layer.
   • §2 — the 15 capabilities, grouped by RISK (what's safe now vs. attorney-gated).
   • §4 — locked decisions (apply them; do not re-litigate).
   • §5 — the verifiable-step method + the test harness rules.
   • §8 — STEP 2, your immediate task.
   • §10 — the audit fixes already applied (esp. fix 2, the familylaw.proceeding model).
   • §11 — the non-code success gaps (context for why some steps are gated).
2. BUILD_PLAN.md — the step contract and the run/test commands.
3. The design docs 00–11 (in the separate design package) — why/detail behind each step. Read the relevant doc(s) before each step, not all at once. For Step 2: docs 02 (domain) and 03 (data model).

Current state

• Step 1 is DONE and validated — activeblue_familylaw module: the familylaw.case spine, the lifecycle state machine, attorney-only gates, security groups, views, and 10 passing tests (tag familylaw_step1). Module layout is in CLAUDE.md §6.
• The code is Odoo 18 (uses <list> not <tree>; direct attributes, no attrs/states).
• Nothing else is built yet. Steps 2–14 are designed, not implemented.

Hard rules (from CLAUDE.md — do not violate)

• One verifiable step at a time. Don't scaffold ahead. Each step = installable code
  • a UI walkthrough + tagged unit tests + a done-when. Get green before advancing.
• The two gates are sacred: no code path lets AI output be filed/sent/signed without attorney approval, or lets an unverified citation into a filing. If a request would breach this, flag it — don't build it.
• Mock all external APIs in tests (Claude, DocuSeal, CourtListener). Never hit the network from a test. Test date math with fixed dates.
• No outcome/success-percentage prediction. The decision graph compares strength of support, never a "% chance of winning" (CLAUDE.md §2 EXCLUDED).
• Tier 3 (capabilities 8–9, Steps 6–7–9) is gated behind licensed-attorney validation of the legal logic. You may build the structure/scaffolding but flag that the legal content is unvalidated; do not present legal reasoning as authoritative.

Your first task: STEP 2

Build exactly what CLAUDE.md §8 specifies:

• Models: familylaw.party, familylaw.child, familylaw.issue, familylaw.proceeding.
• Add indexed, searchable case_number to familylaw.case; open an initial proceeding on case creation.
• Automated conflict screening — a local DB search over familylaw.party across all cases that surfaces potential conflicts for the attorney to clear (never auto-clears, never auto-blocks; the Step 1 conflict_check_cleared attorney gate remains).
• Extend case search to find by party name, child name, and case_number.
• Intake questionnaire (native models; creates a draft case): triage-first with the urgency screen, conditional strictness (standard = strict; emergency = fast-path on minimum facts), branching into the child-support modification question set, runs conflict screening on completion. Captures facts only — never answers "do I have a good case?" (logs it as an attorney question).
• Tests tagged familylaw_step2 covering everything in §8's test list.
• Done-when: familylaw_step2 green + the four-part walkthrough in §8.

Work in the module, keep Step 1's tests green, and deliver Step 2 as one reviewable, tested slice. Then stop and report before starting Step 3.