下载地址
https://www.zhengdianxue.com/wp-content/uploads/skills/org-a2bwkolr--legal.zip将提示词发送给你的 AI 安装该 skills
请根据 https://skillhub.cn/install/skillhub.md，安装 @org-a2bwkolr/legal。法律助手 —— 中国民事/劳动法律辅助工具。 输入合同条款、劳动纠纷事实或诉讼需求，输出风险清单、费用估算、证据提纲或可编辑法律文书骨架。专注第一轮筛查，不做正式法律意见。 核心能力： – 合同风险扫描（条款 → 风险级别 → 修改方向） – 劳动纠纷 / 诉讼费估算（被辞退赔偿、值不值得起诉） – 法律文书骨架生成（起诉状、答辩状、证据提纲） – 内置诉讼费计算脚本 – 强制免责声明
阅读全文 （展开查看完整说明）
概述
Pattern
Jurisdiction → Facts → Issues → Law → Application → Risk → ActionBefore 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- Outdated law: Regulations change; statutes get amended; cases get overruled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.
