Claude
572b8acf8c
Make the library multi-platform without duplicating content. Each skills/<name>/SKILL.md body remains the single source of truth; a new generator renders platform-ready exports from it. - scripts/build-exports.mjs — dependency-free Node generator with a PLATFORMS registry so new platforms (Gemini, Cursor, …) are a few lines. Ships ChatGPT exports at exports/chatgpt/<bundle>/<skill>/SYSTEM_PROMPT.md (172 skills), plus generated index READMEs. Supports --platform and --check. - exports/ — generated ChatGPT system prompts, ready to paste into a Custom GPT. - .github/workflows/check-generated.yml — fails a PR if exports or web/skills.json drift from the source skills. - README "Works With" now documents the ready-to-use exports and regen command. - CHANGELOG + SKILL-AUTHORING-STANDARD note the generated artifacts. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016JWn5jRD5tcEFKrubjQ6Px
2.8 KiB
2.8 KiB
Legal Brief Skill
This skill drafts structured legal briefs and memos using IRAC format — the standard structure for legal writing.
Required Inputs
- Brief type (legal memo / case summary / argument outline / position paper / letter before action)
- Legal issue or question
- Jurisdiction (England & Wales / US / EU / Other)
- Relevant facts
- Relevant law or cases (if known — otherwise flagged as [RESEARCH NEEDED])
- Audience (internal memo / court submission / client letter)
Output Structure
Header
- To: [Recipient]
- From: [Author]
- Date: [Date]
- Re: [Matter reference]
- Confidential: Subject to legal professional privilege
Issue(s)
One sentence per legal question:
- Issue 1: Whether X constitutes Y under [law]
Brief Answer
One sentence per issue — conclusion upfront before analysis.
Facts
Concise relevant facts only. Flag disputed facts.
Law (Rule)
- Relevant statute, regulation, or case law
- How the rule has been interpreted in key cases
- Flag [RESEARCH NEEDED] where law is not provided
Application
- Arguments in favour
- Counter-arguments and responses
- Areas of uncertainty flagged explicitly
Conclusion
- Clear answer to each issue
- Overall recommendation
- Suggested next steps
Caveats
What this memo does not cover. What additional research would change the analysis.
WARNING: This draft requires review by a qualified legal professional. It does not constitute legal advice.
Quality Checks
- Issue is stated as a specific legal question (not a general topic)
- Brief answer appears before the analysis (conclusion upfront)
- Disputed facts are explicitly flagged
- Areas of legal uncertainty are noted (not hidden in confident language)
- Caveats section lists what would change the analysis
- Disclaimer is included
Anti-Patterns
- Do not present uncertain legal positions with confident language — areas of legal ambiguity must be flagged explicitly, not smoothed over
- Do not omit the disclaimer — every legal brief output must include the professional review caveat before the user treats it as advice
- Do not structure the brief chronologically — IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) must be used regardless of how the user framed the request
- Do not cite cases or statutes from memory without flagging them as [REQUIRES VERIFICATION] — hallucinated citations are worse than no citations
- Do not conflate jurisdiction — legal positions in England & Wales, US, and EU can differ materially; always confirm jurisdiction before stating the rule
Example Trigger Phrases
- "Draft a legal memo on [issue]"
- "Write a legal brief arguing [position]"
- "Summarise the legal position on [topic]"
- "Write a letter before action for [situation]"