360 Secure SkillHub
360 安全技能中心

Legal

以律师式流程梳理任何法律情境:先确定管辖与事实,进行争点识别,套用 IRAC 规则与判例/法规,评估风险矩阵,最后给出带期限的行动建议与升级触发条件。仅供法律信息参考,不构成针对具体情形的法律意见。

ivangdavila
ivangdavila
热度 96.67
最近更新 2026-07-16 22:09:39
分类:知识依赖:纯提示词应用场景:法律文档 / 概念解释

安装技能

复制下面的话术发给你的 Agent,它会通过 secure-skills 检索并安装该技能。

执行命令安装此 skill: npx secure-skills-cli add legal
Metadata
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  • Outdated law: Regulations change; statutes get amended; cases get overruled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.