Architecture & privacy boundaries
One workflow layer. Clear data boundaries.
The public library turns CasePrompts workflows into portable prompt text. The planned Workbench would run those workflows inside private matters and keep the source beside the draft.
There is no public CasePrompts API, hosted SDK, document service, or production matter-processing service today.
Planned architecture
Planned architecture separates workflow logic from matter processing.
CasePrompts catalog
- Defined task and output shape
- Record-specific citation convention
- Practice emphasis and source-gap rules
- Versioned CITE instructions
Typed server-only adapter
- Provider credentials must remain server-side
- Every matter and source identifier must be authorized
- Workflow runs must map to bounded work items
- Provider errors must stay behind stable, redacted responses
Workbench review
- Record, run, and draft would stay together
- Findings must resolve to source coordinates
- Users must approve, revise, reject, or omit
- Unsupported material must remain visible
Architecture preview—not a production-system claim. Authentication, tenant isolation, retention, deletion, audit export, and model routing remain release gates.
Exists today
A maintained, deterministic workflow core.
The repository contains the published catalog, pure assembly core, and a repository-local widget pilot. The public website uses that same content for its builder and workflow pages.
Browse the public catalog →Not available today
No public platform promise.
Public APIs, remote loaders, customer API keys, accounts, billing, hosted document ingestion, auto-briefing, and embeddable matter dashboards are not shipped or offered.
Release requirements
The boundary matters as much as the output.
Server-only credentials
Infrastructure and provider credentials never belong in browser code or an embeddable widget.
Matter-scoped access
Every document and work item must resolve through an authorized matter boundary.
Untrusted model output
Generated text remains a draft; citations and quotes still require source review.
Explicit human state
Approve and revise are recorded decisions, not decorative success labels.
Platform conversations
Building around the litigation record?
Tell us where a defined, citation-conscious workflow would fit. This is product discovery, not access to a public API.
Describe the product and workflow at a high level. Do not include client data, credentials, or confidential technical details.
Prefer email? Contact developers@caseprompts.com.