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

  小蔥技能7w4.net持續更新中。

• 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• Outdated law: Regulations change; statutes get amended; cases get overruled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:

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.

這個 Skill 質量不錯，結構清晰、輸出專業，能較好地完成合同風險掃描、賠償計算和文書框架生成等任務。最值得肯定的是它的邊界意識——明確告知使用者這只是初步參考、不能替代律師意見，這種嚴謹態度在法律場景中很重要。不足之處是勞動糾紛等複雜場景的覆蓋還不夠深入，某些細分情況處理起來可能不夠準確。總體適合需要快速瞭解法律風險、獲取初步框架的使用者，但涉及具體金額或複雜糾紛時還需進一步核實。