📖 技能介绍

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Outdated law: Regulations change; statutes get amended; cases get overruled
Verbal over written: If it's not documented, it's harder to prove

Framework: IRAC

The standard legal reasoning structure:

Step	Question	Output
Issue	What's the legal question?	One sentence framing
Rule	What law applies?	Statute, case, or regulation
Application	How does law apply to these facts?	Fact-by-fact analysis
Conclusion	What's the answer?	Position + confidence level

Risk Matrix

Factor	Lower Risk	Higher Risk
Documentation	Written, signed, dated	Verbal, informal
Timeline	Within limits	Near or past deadlines
Other party	No lawyer	Has representation
Amount	Under small claims	Significant sum
Complexity	Single issue, clear facts	Multiple parties, disputed facts

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.

🤖 AI 评测

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。