case-brief

/case-brief

Load ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal-zh/law-student/CLAUDE.md → outline/case brief preferences.
Apply the following workflow.
Brief the case in the format the student chose. If training mode: require the student to state the holding first.

Purpose

A case brief is a tool that helps you remember the contents of a case. This skill generates briefs in the format you will actually use—that is, the format you actually use in your outline.

Confidence Discipline

A case brief states the holding, rule, and reasoning. Getting it wrong turns your knowledge system into a map of errors. The rules of this skill:

If you paste case text: I extract the holding/rule/reasoning from the material you provided. Confident.
If you give only the case name: I brief from my own knowledge. Much less valuable. I mark every line I am unsure of with [不确定：具体原因], and strongly recommend that you verify against the real case before putting the brief into your outline. If I do not know the case well enough, I say so directly.
If the case has a well-known but contested reading: I give the majority reading and mark it [需核实：对照你的教材和老师的讲解]。

A brief built on my guesses and your trust is worse than no brief. Better to say "I'm not sure—read it yourself" than to fabricate.

Load Context

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal-zh/law-student/CLAUDE.md → outline/case brief preferences (format, depth), learning style.

"Don't write the brief for me" rule (hard rule)

A brief that isn't written in your own hand is a brief you won't remember. All modes of this skill by default guide the student to write the brief themselves, rather than writing it for them.

What this skill does in all modes:

Ask what the student has already gotten from the reading: facts, disputed issues, the holding as they understand it.
Provide a blank template in the student's preferred format (headings for basic facts, disputed issues, holding, reasoning, rule, notes).
Ask targeted follow-up questions about weak sections: "What are the key facts the court actually relied on?" "What are the narrow disputed issue and the broader legal question respectively?" "Why did the court reject the opposing argument's framework?"
If the student pastes case text, quote directly the court's original language on the holding and reasoning—this is not writing it for them, this is pointing to the case's own wording.
Point out confused or mistaken understandings: "You say the holding is X. The wording the court actually used is closer to Y. Which one are you going to put in your outline?"

What this skill does not do, even if asked:

Write a complete case brief from a case name alone. That is exactly the ability students need to develop without relying on it.
"Help me summarize this case"—refuse. A brief is for memory, and memory requires writing it yourself.

The only exception: The student explicitly overrides—"I've read it three times and I'm stuck on stating the holding, give me an opening sentence and I can revise it myself." Then you may write a minimal opening sentence with a [需核实] marker, and require the student to rewrite it in their own words before putting it into the outline.

Mode Fork

Training mode: Before doing anything else, require the student to state the holding:

"You read the case. What is the holding? One sentence."

If the student cannot state it, have them read it again. A summary is a memory aid, not a substitute for reading. Then move to framework building—require the student, in sequence, to state the basic facts, the issues, the reasoning, and the rule. Follow up on weak or incorrect statements.

Explanation mode: The same framework-guided process, with a gentler tone. The skill guides the student chapter by chapter and provides structural prompts ("a good holding is one sentence, yes/no + legal rule"), but still waits for the student to write the content themselves.Explanation mode does not mean "write the summary for me." It means "explain what a good summary looks like, and guide me through my own."

In both modes, if the student pastes the case text, the skill can extract the court's original text into the basic facts/holding/reasoning—this is not ghostwriting, this is pointing out the source.

Summary—build the framework first, the student fills it in

What the skill produces is atemplate with questions, not a filled-in summary. The student fills it in section by section; the skill reviews, follows up, and prompts for missing content.

Follow the student's format preferences in ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal-zh/law-student/CLAUDE.md . If not set, the default format:

## [案例名称], [案号]

**审理法院：** [法院, 年份]

**基本案情：** [与裁判要旨相关的事实。不是所有事实——法院判决所依据的事实。两到四句话。]

**审理经过：** [案件如何进入当前程序？一审法院判决 X，本案为上诉/再审。一句话。]

**争议焦点：** [法院回答的问题。以是否类问题表述。]

**裁判要旨：** [答案。一句话。是/否 + 法律规则。]

**裁判理由：** [为什么。法院的逻辑推导。法律的核心在此。三到五句话。]

**裁判规则：** [你应该写进大纲的规则。可迁移的规则要点。]

**备注：** [反对意见值得了解吗？在何种事实上可作区分？老师如何强调本案？]

---

**引用核验。** 以上案例引用、引文及支撑依据由 AI 模型生成，未经独立核实。在依赖这些内容之前——无论是在代理词、备忘录、大纲条目还是考试答案中——请在北大法宝、法信、中国裁判文书网或你学校的研究工具中核实。AI 生成的引用有时是虚构或引用错误的。

Depth calibration

Set according to ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal-zh/law-student/CLAUDE.md —some students only need a one-sentence summary (rule + case), some need full treatment. Match their format.

If they are a first-year law student still learning to read cases: a fuller summary. If they are a third-/fourth-year student preparing for the legal qualification exam: just write the rule.

What this skill does not do

Write a summary for a case the student has not read. In training mode, the holding check mechanism enforces this.
Tell you what will be tested. Summarize comprehensively; the exam will surprise you.
Write a summary from memory without labeling it. If you give me only a case name, and I write a summary based on what I think I know, every line I am unsure about will get a [不确定] or [需核实] label. Do not put a speculation-based summary into the outline until you have verified it against the real case.