{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"tool_bench-iq","slug":"bench-iq","name":"Bench IQ","type":"product","url":"https://benchiq.com","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/bench-iq","categories":["text-writing"],"tags":[],"pricing":{"model":"paid","free":false,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"tool_bench-iq__cap_0","uri":"capability://legal.judicial.pattern.recognition","name":"judicial-pattern-recognition","description":"Analyzes case law and judicial opinions to identify recurring patterns in how specific judges rule on particular legal issues. Uses AI to surface judicial tendencies and reasoning trends that might be missed in traditional keyword searches.","intents":["I want to understand how a specific judge typically rules on contract disputes","I need to identify patterns in judicial reasoning across multiple cases","I want to know which judges are more favorable to certain legal arguments"],"best_for":["litigation attorneys","trial lawyers","mid-to-large law firms"],"limitations":["Limited to judicial opinions and case law data","Requires sufficient case history for pattern recognition to be meaningful","Does not replace comprehensive legal research"],"requires":["Access to judicial opinions database","Subscription to Bench IQ platform"],"input_types":["judge name","legal issue/topic","case type"],"output_types":["pattern analysis","judicial tendency report","statistical insights"],"categories":["legal"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_bench-iq__cap_1","uri":"capability://legal.judicial.behavior.prediction","name":"judicial-behavior-prediction","description":"Predicts likely judicial outcomes and decision patterns based on historical judicial behavior analysis. Helps attorneys anticipate how a judge will rule given specific case facts and legal arguments.","intents":["I want to predict how Judge X will likely rule on my motion","I need to assess the probability of success with a particular judge","I want to understand judicial bias or preferences before filing"],"best_for":["litigation strategists","trial attorneys","case strategy teams"],"limitations":["Predictions are probabilistic, not deterministic","Accuracy depends on volume of prior judicial decisions","Cannot account for novel legal theories or unprecedented circumstances"],"requires":["Historical case data for the target judge","Clear case facts and legal issues"],"input_types":["judge identifier","case facts","legal issues","motion type"],"output_types":["probability assessment","outcome prediction","confidence metrics"],"categories":["legal"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_bench-iq__cap_2","uri":"capability://legal.contextual.case.law.synthesis","name":"contextual-case-law-synthesis","description":"Automatically synthesizes and contextualizes relevant case law by extracting key holdings, reasoning, and judicial perspectives. Provides AI-generated summaries that connect cases to specific legal arguments rather than just listing search results.","intents":["I need a synthesized overview of how courts have ruled on this legal issue","I want to understand the reasoning behind conflicting case holdings","I need to quickly understand the current state of law on a topic"],"best_for":["research attorneys","appellate lawyers","legal analysts"],"limitations":["Synthesis quality depends on AI interpretation accuracy","May miss nuanced distinctions between cases","Requires human review for critical legal arguments"],"requires":["Relevant case law in database","Clear legal topic or issue"],"input_types":["legal topic","jurisdiction","case type"],"output_types":["synthesized case summary","contextual analysis","holding compilation"],"categories":["legal"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_bench-iq__cap_3","uri":"capability://legal.judicial.opinion.analysis","name":"judicial-opinion-analysis","description":"Analyzes individual judicial opinions to extract reasoning, key holdings, and judicial philosophy. Provides detailed breakdowns of how judges justify their decisions and what factors they emphasize.","intents":["I want to understand the judge's reasoning in this opinion","I need to identify what factors this judge considers most important","I want to extract the key holdings from a complex opinion"],"best_for":["appellate attorneys","legal researchers","case strategists"],"limitations":["Analysis is AI-generated and may miss subtle legal nuances","Requires clear opinion text","Cannot analyze unpublished or sealed opinions"],"requires":["Full text of judicial opinion","Subscription access"],"input_types":["judicial opinion text","opinion citation"],"output_types":["reasoning analysis","holding extraction","judicial philosophy assessment"],"categories":["legal"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_bench-iq__cap_4","uri":"capability://legal.judge.comparison.analysis","name":"judge-comparison-analysis","description":"Compares judicial philosophies, ruling patterns, and decision tendencies across multiple judges. Helps identify which judges are more aligned with specific legal arguments or case characteristics.","intents":["I want to compare how Judge A and Judge B rule on similar issues","I need to know which judge on this panel is most favorable to my argument","I want to understand the differences in judicial philosophy across judges"],"best_for":["litigation strategists","trial attorneys","appellate lawyers"],"limitations":["Comparisons require sufficient case history for all judges","May not account for recent changes in judicial philosophy","Limited to judges with published opinions"],"requires":["Multiple judges with case history","Clear comparison criteria"],"input_types":["judge names","legal issue","case type"],"output_types":["comparative analysis","ruling pattern comparison","judicial philosophy matrix"],"categories":["legal"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_bench-iq__cap_5","uri":"capability://legal.argument.persuasiveness.assessment","name":"argument-persuasiveness-assessment","description":"Evaluates the historical success of specific legal arguments before particular judges. Analyzes which arguments have been most persuasive to a judge based on prior opinions and outcomes.","intents":["I want to know which legal arguments are most persuasive to this judge","I need to understand what reasoning this judge finds compelling","I want to craft arguments that align with this judge's preferences"],"best_for":["trial attorneys","appellate advocates","brief writers"],"limitations":["Success depends on argument type and case context","May not apply to novel legal theories","Requires sufficient prior case data"],"requires":["Target judge identification","Proposed legal arguments"],"input_types":["judge identifier","legal argument type","case context"],"output_types":["persuasiveness score","argument effectiveness analysis","recommendation"],"categories":["legal"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_bench-iq__cap_6","uri":"capability://legal.jurisdiction.specific.judicial.intelligence","name":"jurisdiction-specific-judicial-intelligence","description":"Provides jurisdiction-specific insights into how judges in particular courts or geographic areas rule on specific legal issues. Surfaces regional judicial trends and preferences.","intents":["I need to understand judicial trends in the 9th Circuit on this issue","I want to know how judges in this state court typically rule on this matter","I need regional judicial intelligence for case strategy"],"best_for":["regional litigation practices","multi-jurisdictional firms","appellate attorneys"],"limitations":["Limited to jurisdictions with sufficient case data","Regional trends may shift over time","Cannot predict individual judge behavior with certainty"],"requires":["Jurisdiction specification","Legal issue or case type"],"input_types":["jurisdiction","legal topic","court level"],"output_types":["regional trend analysis","judicial intelligence report","jurisdiction-specific insights"],"categories":["legal"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_bench-iq__cap_7","uri":"capability://legal.case.outcome.risk.assessment","name":"case-outcome-risk-assessment","description":"Assesses litigation risk by analyzing historical outcomes of similar cases before specific judges. Provides probability-based risk metrics to inform case strategy and settlement decisions.","intents":["I want to assess the risk of losing this case before this judge","I need to understand my probability of success on this motion","I want data-driven risk metrics to inform settlement negotiations"],"best_for":["litigation risk managers","trial attorneys","case strategists"],"limitations":["Risk assessment is probabilistic, not deterministic","Accuracy depends on case similarity and judge history","Cannot account for exceptional circumstances or novel facts"],"requires":["Case facts and legal issues","Target judge information","Similar historical cases"],"input_types":["case facts","judge identifier","legal claims","case type"],"output_types":["risk score","probability metrics","outcome assessment"],"categories":["legal"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_bench-iq__cap_8","uri":"capability://legal.judicial.bias.detection","name":"judicial-bias-detection","description":"Identifies potential judicial biases or preferences by analyzing patterns in judicial decisions across different case types, parties, or legal arguments. Helps attorneys understand if a judge has systematic preferences.","intents":["I want to know if this judge has a bias toward certain types of parties","I need to understand if this judge favors particular legal arguments","I want to assess whether recusal might be appropriate"],"best_for":["appellate attorneys","litigation strategists","ethics-focused practitioners"],"limitations":["Bias detection is statistical and may reflect case selection rather than true bias","Cannot prove subjective bias definitively","Requires substantial case history"],"requires":["Sufficient judicial opinions","Clear comparison categories"],"input_types":["judge identifier","bias category","case type"],"output_types":["bias analysis","statistical patterns","preference assessment"],"categories":["legal"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_bench-iq__cap_9","uri":"capability://legal.legal.precedent.impact.analysis","name":"legal-precedent-impact-analysis","description":"Analyzes how specific precedents or appellate decisions have influenced subsequent judicial decisions. Tracks the impact and adoption of legal precedents across cases and judges.","intents":["I want to understand how this precedent has been applied by other judges","I need to know if this precedent is still influential in current cases","I want to assess the strength of this precedent as authority"],"best_for":["appellate attorneys","legal researchers","precedent analysts"],"limitations":["Impact analysis depends on citation patterns","May not capture informal influence","Requires sufficient subsequent case data"],"requires":["Precedent identification","Jurisdiction scope"],"input_types":["case citation","legal principle","jurisdiction"],"output_types":["impact analysis","citation tracking","precedent strength assessment"],"categories":["legal"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":44,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"high","permissions":["Access to judicial opinions database","Subscription to Bench IQ platform","Historical case data for the target judge","Clear case facts and legal issues","Relevant case law in database","Clear legal topic or issue","Full text of judicial opinion","Subscription access","Multiple judges with case history","Clear comparison criteria"],"failure_modes":["Limited to judicial opinions and case law data","Requires sufficient case history for pattern recognition to be meaningful","Does not replace comprehensive legal research","Predictions are probabilistic, not deterministic","Accuracy depends on volume of prior judicial decisions","Cannot account for novel legal theories or unprecedented circumstances","Synthesis quality depends on AI interpretation accuracy","May miss nuanced distinctions between cases","Requires human review for critical legal arguments","Analysis is AI-generated and may miss subtle legal nuances","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.39999999999999997,"quality":0.82,"ecosystem":0.15000000000000002,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.75,"weights":{"adoption":0.25,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.1,"match_graph":0.35,"freshness":0.05}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"active","updated_at":"2026-05-24T12:16:29.714Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-04-05T13:23:42.549Z","last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=bench-iq","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=bench-iq"}},"signature":"uhm7PvbCio4WrjFxzweRPFMdEhSu99B3BWGF3s44mnY1x3wi4dciwov9vhLL78+rJmjk6q6D04eqnKHp71/IBw==","signedAt":"2026-06-22T05:18:49.923Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/bench-iq","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/bench-iq","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=bench-iq","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}