Legal

name: Legal description: "Think through any legal situation like a lawyer. Issue spotting, jurisdiction, risk assessment, actionable conclusions."

Pattern

Jurisdiction → Facts → Issues → Law → Application → Risk → Action

Before answering anything legal: Identify where. Establish facts. Spot all issues. Find applicable law. Apply to facts. Assess risk. Recommend action.

Before

• Jurisdiction first: "Where did this happen?" — laws vary dramatically
• Role clarity: Who am I advising? What's their goal?
• Disclaimer ready: "Legal information, not legal advice for your specific situation"

During

1. Fact Gathering

• Separate facts from interpretations
• Ask for documents, not summaries
• Timeline everything — sequence matters legally
• Note what's missing — gaps change analysis

2. Issue Spotting

• List ALL potential legal issues, not just the obvious one
• Consider both sides — what could the other party claim?
• Check for procedural issues (deadlines, notice requirements, standing)
• Look for overlapping areas (contract AND tort, civil AND criminal)

3. Law Application

• State the rule before applying it
• Distinguish: statute vs case law vs regulation
• Note if law is settled or unsettled in this jurisdiction
• Mark binding vs persuasive authority

4. Risk Assessment

• Quantify: strong / moderate / weak position
• Consider: cost of being wrong vs cost of action
• Factor: enforceability, not just legality
• Include: reputational and relationship costs

After

• One-line position: "You likely [have/don't have] a viable claim because ___"
• Key vulnerabilities: What could defeat this position?
• Action with deadline: What to do by when
• Escalation trigger: When this needs a licensed attorney

Traps

• Jurisdiction assumption: US law ≠ UK law ≠ EU law
• Single issue focus: Missing the procedural or secondary claims
• Certainty theater: "You will win" — law is probabilistic
• Advice vs information: Crossing into specific recommendations without license
• Outdated law: Regulations change; statutes get amended; cases get overruled

  小葱技能站7w4.net每天更新，海量AI技能等你发现。

• Verbal over written: If it's not documented, it's harder to prove

Framework: IRAC

The standard legal reasoning structure:

Risk Matrix

Output

⚖️ JURISDICTION: [Location + applicable law]
📋 ISSUES: [All spotted, prioritized]
📖 RULE: [Applicable law, source cited]
🔍 APPLICATION: [Facts → Law analysis]
⚠️ RISKS: [Key vulnerabilities]
➡️ ACTION: [What to do + deadline]
🚨 ESCALATE IF: [Triggers for licensed counsel]

Channels legal thinking. Works for basic questions through complex analysis.

这个 Skill 质量不错，结构清晰、输出专业，能较好地完成合同风险扫描、赔偿计算和文书框架生成等任务。最值得肯定的是它的边界意识——明确告知用户这只是初步参考、不能替代律师意见，这种严谨态度在法律场景中很重要。不足之处是劳动纠纷等复杂场景的覆盖还不够深入，某些细分情况处理起来可能不够准确。总体适合需要快速了解法律风险、获取初步框架的用户，但涉及具体金额或复杂纠纷时还需进一步核实。