memo

/memo

1. Load ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal-zh/legal-clinic/CLAUDE.md → practice area, jurisdiction.
2. Use the following workflow. Read the intake summary/case notes.
3. Frame the issues as questions. Build an IRAC framework for each issue—the rule sections are "to be researched," the application sections are "student analysis" prompts, and the conclusion sections are left blank.
4. Favorable factors/unfavorable factors/open issues. Research gap summary.
5. Output a prominent "analysis to be completed by you" label at the front.

/legal-clinic:memo

---

Memorandum: Internal Case Analysis

Purpose

The case analysis memorandum is the vehicle for the student's thinking. This skill provides the IRAC framework and annotates research gaps—the student fills in the analysis.

The analysis is the student's work. This skill builds the structure; it does not draw conclusions.

Load Context

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal-zh/legal-clinic/CLAUDE.md → practice area, jurisdiction, supervision style. Intake summary and case notes are used to obtain the facts.

Teaching Check

Read the supervising attorney's guide for this practice area at ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal-zh/legal-clinic/guides/<实践领域>.md. Check the pedagogy_posture setting:

• guide(default): Produce the IRAC structure and the research gap list. Require the student to write each rule statement themselves from research, rather than directly giving a framework. Give feedback on what the student writes. Only after the student has attempted once, provide a filled-in framework rule for a section.
• assist： Produce the memorandum framework and fill in what can be filled in. Flag matters for student review. The student learns by reviewing and editing. (Note: this memorandum skill always leaves the [学生分析] and [学生结论] blocks blank—assist means the skill produces the IRAC framework and framework rule statements; it does not produce applications or conclusions.)
• teach： Do not produce the framework or framework content. Require the student to frame the issues themselves, state the rules based on research, and complete the application. Give feedback. Ask guiding questions when the student is confused. Only after two attempts, show a model rule statement or model application paragraph, and only for the section where they are confused. Track the student's correct and incorrect points so the supervising attorney can see progress.

If there is no guide, use guide. If there is a guide but no stance is set, use guide。

Regardless of stance, the output always includes: "Teaching mode: [assist/guide/teach]—set by the supervising attorney's guide. This means I [what the student did vs what the skill did]."

Workflow

Step 1: Frame the Issues

From the intake summary and case notes: What legal issues does this case present?

State each issue as a question. Not "habitability"—but "Can the client raise a habitability defense to eviction based on the broken heater? If so, can that defense offset the rent owed?"

If there are multiple issues, create a separate IRAC block for each issue.

Step 2: Build the IRAC Framework

For each issue:

Issue: State as a question (from Step 1).

Rule: This is the research gap, not a conclusion. State what the student needs to find:

[待检索：[省份]居住条件抗辩的裁判规则——可居住性默示担保的要件、 哪些条件构成、可用的救济措施包括租金抵扣。 检索起点：《民法典》合同编租赁合同相关条款，然后检索关于暖气/供暖 条件的具体案例。参见 /research-start 获取路线图。]

If the skill has high confidence in a general rule framework (e.g., "most jurisdictions recognize an implied warranty of habitability owed by landlords"), state it as a framework starting point—butclearly label it as unverified：

Framework (unverified—confirm applicability in [province]): Most jurisdictions recognize an implied warranty owed by landlords to maintain habitable conditions. Breach of this warranty may give rise to rent withholding, self-repair and deduction, or rent abatement. [待核实：[省份]的具体要件和救济措施]

Application: This is where the student's analysis goes. Build the structure, do not fill in the content:

`[Student analysis: apply the rule to the facts. Key facts to address:

• Heat broken since November—how long counts as "unreasonable"?
• The party notified the landlord [when? in what manner? any record?]
• The landlord's response or failure to respond
• [Province]-specific rules: Does the party need written notice? Must rent be paid into escrow? Are there other procedural prerequisites?]`

List the relevant facts. Let the student complete the application.

Conclusion: Deliberately left blank:

[学生结论：基于你的上述检索和分析，可能的结果是什么？该抗辩的强度如何？弱点是什么？]

Step 3: Identify favorable factors, unfavorable factors, open issues

A separate section, placed after the IRAC block:

Favorable factors (apparent from the facts—the student should test):

• [Facts that appear favorable and why]

Unfavorable factors (apparent from the facts—the student should assess severity):

• [Facts that appear unfavorable and why]
• [不确定：[X]是否实际上是不利因素——取决于[省份]关于[Y]的规则]

Open issues (questions the memorandum cannot answer without more information):

• Factual level: [information unknown from the client]
• Legal level: [issues requiring research]
• Strategic level: [judgments the student/supervisor needs to make]

Output

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
  AI 辅助框架——分析由你完成
  每个 [待检索] 和 [学生分析] 块是提示，不是待删除的占位符。
  思考发生在你填入它们的时候。
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

# 案件分析备忘录：[当事人] — [事项]

**日期：** [日期] | **撰写人：** [学生] | **呈送：** [指导老师]

---

## 底线

[受理案件 / 因X拒绝 / 需要关于Y的更多信息 — 下一步是Z]

---

## 本案问题

1. [以疑问句表述的问题]
2. [以疑问句表述的问题]

---

## 问题1：[问题]

### 规则

[附待核实标记的框架起手点，以及待检索块]

### 应用

[附相关事实的学生分析框架]

### 结论

[学生结论 — 留空]

---

[每个问题重复]

---

## 有利因素

[附注意事项的列表]

## 不利因素

[附不确定标记的列表（如适用）]

## 待解决问题

**事实层面：** [列表]
**法律层面：** [列表 — 这些送入 /research-start]
**策略层面：** [列表 — 这些是与指导老师讨论的议题]

---

## 检索缺口摘要

[将所有待检索块汇总为一个清单，让学生可以系统性地逐一推进——并可对每个运行 /research-start]

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

## 本备忘录不是什么

这是一个框架，不是一份分析。[学生分析] 块是教育价值的所在——填入这些块是实际工作。这些块仍为空白的备忘录是一份尚未撰写的备忘录。

---

**引注核实——使用前必须完成。** 以上建议的任何框架规则、案例或法条由 AI 模型生成，未经核实。在依赖任何引注——或将其纳入当事人工作——之前，请通过北大法宝、法信、中国裁判文书网或你诊所的检索平台核实准确性和现行有效状态。将未经核实的引注标记给你的指导老师。

**来源归属。** 框架中每条建议引注标注其来源：`[北大法宝]`、`[中国裁判文书网]`、`[法信]`，或从法律检索连接器获取的引注使用 MCP 工具名称；网页搜索引注标注 `[网页搜索 — 需核实]`；训练数据回忆的引注标注 `[模型知识 — 需验证]`；指导律师或案件文件提供的引注标注 `[用户提供]`。标注"需核实"的引注携带更高的捏造风险，应首先检查。绝不剥离或合并标签——它们告诉学生哪些线索是原始检索、哪些是AI模型的猜测需要对照一手来源核实。

**无沉默补充。** 如果对配置检索工具的查询返回某规则的结果稀少或没有，说明并停止。不要从网络搜索或模型知识编造内容来填充缺口而不询问。说："[工具]的检索返回了[N]条结果。[规则/问题]的覆盖似乎稀薄。选项：(1)扩大检索词，(2)尝试不同的检索工具，(3)搜索网页——结果将标注 `[网页搜索 — 需核实]` 并应依赖前对照一手来源核实，或(4)保留 `[待核实规则]` 并停在这里。你选哪个？"指导律师决定是否接受较低置信度的来源。

What this skill does not do

• Write the analysis. It builds the IRAC framework and flags the gaps. The student completes the application reasoning.
• Provide verified rules. Every rule statement is clearly labeled as unverified before the student studies it.
• Draw a conclusion. The C in IRAC is deliberately left blank.
• Replace a conversation with the supervisor. The open issues/strategy section is the agenda for that conversation, not a substitute for it.

Close with a next-step decision tree

Close with the next-step decision tree in CLAUDE.md ## 产出保障 . Customize the options based on what this skill has just produced—the five default branches (draft X, escalate, get more facts, wait and see, other) are starting points, not locked-in items. The decision tree is itself the output; the lawyer chooses.