Upload folder using huggingface_hub

src/agent_v2.py

@@ -358,10 +358,20 @@ def run_query_v2(user_message: str, session_id: str) -> Dict[str, Any]:
     entities = extract_entities(user_message)
     augmented_message = augment_query(user_message, entities)
 
-    # Pass 2
+   # Pass 2 — build search queries from analysis + legal issues
     search_queries = analysis.get("search_queries", [augmented_message])
     if not search_queries:
         search_queries = [augmented_message]
+
+    # Add queries from issue spotter legal_issues
+    for issue in analysis.get("legal_issues", []):
+        statutes = issue.get("relevant_statutes", [])
+        specific = issue.get("specific_issue", "")
+        if specific:
+            issue_query = f"{specific} {' '.join(statutes[:2])}".strip()
+            if issue_query not in search_queries:
+                search_queries.append(issue_query)
+
     if augmented_message not in search_queries:
         search_queries.append(augmented_message)
 

src/system_prompt.py

@@ -134,6 +134,35 @@ Tell them what to do TODAY not just eventually.""",
 5. What to watch out for
 Be specific. Cite sections and procedures. Give a real plan.""",
 
+    "strategy_synthesis": """User has triggered a full strategy synthesis.
+Generate a complete structured legal strategy document using ALL facts established across the conversation.
+
+## Legal Strategy Summary
+
+**Your Situation:** [2-3 sentence summary of all established facts from conversation history]
+
+**Strongest Arguments In Your Favour:**
+1. [argument + supporting judgment or statute]
+2. [argument + supporting judgment or statute]
+3. [argument + supporting judgment or statute if applicable]
+
+**Counterarguments You Will Face:**
+1. [counterargument + how to address it specifically]
+2. [counterargument + how to address it specifically]
+
+**Recommended Next Steps:**
+1. [immediate action — do today]
+2. [legal filing if applicable — with realistic timeline]
+3. [evidence to gather — be specific]
+4. [follow-up actions]
+
+**Relevant Statutes and Sections:** [list all applicable acts and specific sections]
+**Approximate Timeline:** [realistic estimate for this type of matter in Indian courts]
+**Weak Points To Address:** [honest assessment of gaps or vulnerabilities in the case]
+
+This is the culmination of everything established in this conversation.
+Pull ALL facts, hypotheses, and evidence from the case state.""",
+
     "explanation": """Explain the legal concept clearly.
 Start with plain language meaning.
 Then apply to this specific situation.
@@ -211,7 +240,7 @@ Output this exact structure:
   "tone": "panicked|analytical|aggressive|casual|defeated",
   "format_requested": "bullets|numbered|table|prose|none",
   "subject": "brief description of main legal subject",
-  "action_needed": "question|reflection|partial_finding|advice|strategy|explanation|observation|reassurance",
+  "action_needed": "question|reflection|partial_finding|advice|strategy|strategy_synthesis|explanation|observation|reassurance",
   "urgency": "immediate|medium|low",
   "hypotheses": [
     {"claim": "legal hypothesis 1", "confidence": "high|medium|low", "evidence": ["evidence supporting this"]},
@@ -227,8 +256,21 @@ Output this exact structure:
     "timeline_events": ["event with approximate time if mentioned"]
   },
   "facts_missing": ["critical fact 1 that would change strategy", "critical fact 2"],
+  "legal_issues": [
+    {
+      "domain": "labour law|criminal law|property law|family law|consumer law|constitutional law|contract law|cyber law|tax law|other",
+      "specific_issue": "brief description of specific issue",
+      "relevant_statutes": ["Act Name Section Number"],
+      "confidence": "high|medium|low"
+    }
+  ],
+  "clarifying_question": {
+    "question": "the single most important question to ask if action_needed is question",
+    "why_needed": "one sentence explanation of why this fact changes the legal strategy",
+    "already_known": ["fact 1 already established", "fact 2 already established"]
+  },
   "stage": "intake|understanding|analysis|strategy|followup",
-  "last_response_type": "question|reflection|partial_finding|advice|strategy|explanation|observation|reassurance|none",
+  "last_response_type": "question|reflection|partial_finding|advice|strategy|strategy_synthesis|explanation|observation|reassurance|none",
   "updated_summary": "3-4 line compressed summary of ENTIRE conversation including this new message. Must capture all key facts, legal issues identified, and current stage.",
   "search_queries": ["specific legal question for FAISS search 1", "specific legal question 2", "specific legal question 3"],
   "should_interpret_context": true,
@@ -243,4 +285,29 @@ Rules:
 - updated_summary must be a complete brief of everything known so far
 - should_interpret_context: true if agent should reflect its understanding back to user (useful every 3-4 turns)
 - format_decision: choose the format that best fits what this specific response needs to communicate
+
+ISSUE SPOTTER — critical rule:
+legal_issues must extract ALL legal domains present in the facts, not just what the user explicitly mentioned.
+Include issues the user may not know exist.
+Example: User says "employer fired me after I reported safety violations" →
+legal_issues should include: wrongful termination (Industrial Disputes Act 1947 Section 2ra), whistleblower protection (Factories Act), potential victimisation claim, and any applicable state labour laws.
+Each identified legal_issue generates an additional specific search query in search_queries.
+Always look for the non-obvious angle — the criminal complaint nobody thought of, the procedural protection that changes everything.
+
+SOCRATIC CLARIFIER — critical rule:
+When action_needed is "question":
+- clarifying_question.question must be exactly ONE question — the single most important missing fact
+- clarifying_question.why_needed must explain in one sentence why this specific fact changes the legal strategy
+- clarifying_question.already_known must list facts already established so the question never repeats known information
+- The question must be surgical: not "tell me more" but "Is this a government or private sector employer?"
+- Never ask what is already captured in updated_summary or facts_extracted
+- The question drives toward the most strategy-changing unknown fact
+
+STRATEGY SYNTHESIS — trigger rule:
+Set action_needed to "strategy_synthesis" when user message contains any of:
+"summarise", "summary", "what should I do", "give me a plan", "next steps",
+"strategy", "what do I do now", "give me advice", "what are my options",
+"final advice", "wrap up", "conclude", "what have we established", "plan of action"
+This triggers generation of the full structured strategy document using ALL accumulated case state.
+
 - Output ONLY the JSON. No explanation. No preamble. No markdown fences."""