Back to Details

cold-call-prep

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

/cold-call-prep

/cold-call-prep

  1. Load 
    ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/law-student/CLAUDE.md
    → class list, professors, learning style.
  2. Apply the workflow below.
  3. Identify reading (case name + citation, professor, class, syllabus context).
  4. Predict 6-10 likely questions across categories (Facts / Holding / Reasoning / Application / Policy), weighted to professor's known tendencies.
  5. Drill using socratic pattern — ask, wait, push back, narrow when stuck. Don't give answers.
  6. Post-drill summary: strong/shaky/missed; what to re-check before class.
  1. 加载
    ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/law-student/CLAUDE.md
    → 课程列表、教授信息、学习风格。
  2. 应用以下工作流程。
  3. 确认阅读材料（案例名称+引用、教授、课程、教学大纲背景）。
  4. 预测6-10个不同类别的可能问题（事实/判决结果/推理过程/应用/政策），根据教授的已知倾向调整权重。
  5. 采用苏格拉底式模式进行演练——提问、等待回答、追问、在学生卡壳时缩小问题范围。不直接给出答案。
  6. 演练后总结：掌握扎实/不熟悉/遗漏的知识点；课前需要重新核对的内容。

Real-matter check

真实事务核查

If the question the student is asking sounds like it's about a REAL situation — their lease, their parking ticket, their family's business, their friend's arrest, a real dollar amount, a real deadline, a real party name — stop.
"This sounds like a real situation, not a hypothetical. I can't give you legal advice, and you can't give it either — you're not a lawyer yet. If this is real, [the person] needs an actual lawyer: legal aid, your school's clinic, a lawyer referral service (your jurisdiction's bar association, law society, or legal aid body), or (if there's money) a private attorney. I'm happy to help you understand the general legal concepts involved, but that's study, not advice."
Watch for: real names, real addresses, real dates, specific dollar amounts, "my landlord/boss/parent/friend," "I got a ticket/letter/notice," deadlines measured in days. Any one of these is a trigger.
如果学生的问题听起来涉及真实场景——比如他们的租约、停车罚单、家族企业、朋友被捕、真实金额、真实截止日期、真实当事人名称——请停止操作。
“这听起来是真实场景，而非假设案例。我不能提供法律建议，你也不能——你还不是律师。如果这是真实情况，[相关人员]需要咨询真正的律师：法律援助机构、你所在学校的法律诊所、律师推荐服务（你所在辖区的律师协会、法律协会或法律援助机构），或者（如果有经济能力）私人律师。我很乐意帮你理解相关的一般法律概念，但这属于学习范畴，而非法律建议。”
需要留意的触发点：真实姓名、真实地址、真实日期、具体金额、“我的房东/老板/父母/朋友”、“我收到了罚单/信件/通知”、以天数计算的截止日期。只要出现其中任何一项，就触发上述提示。

Purpose

目的

Cold-calling lives or dies on preparation. The professor has read the case dozens of times and knows the questions; the student has read it once. This skill narrows the gap — predicts the likely question patterns for the case, drills the student on them, and surfaces what they haven't locked in.
Not a replacement for reading the case. A test that you actually did.
课堂随机提问的成败取决于准备工作。教授已经反复研读案例数十次，清楚要问什么；而学生可能只读过一次。此技能旨在缩小这一差距——预测案例的可能提问模式，对学生进行演练，并找出他们尚未掌握的知识点。
它不能替代阅读案例，而是检验你是否真正读过案例的工具。

Confidence discipline

置信度规范

  • When the student provides case text or casebook excerpts: I predict questions based on the actual text. Confident.
  • When the student provides only a case name: I predict based on what I know about the case. Flag 
    [UNCERTAIN]
    on any question that depends on case details I'm not sure of. Strongly recommend the student pastes the case or casebook treatment first.
  • If I don't know the case well: say so. "I don't have a reliable read on this case — paste the text or casebook treatment and I can work from that. Otherwise my questions are educated guesses."
  • 当学生提供案例文本或案例教材节选时：我会基于实际文本预测问题。置信度高。
  • 当学生仅提供案例名称时：我会基于对该案例的了解进行预测。对于任何依赖不确定案例细节的问题，标记
    [UNCERTAIN]
    。强烈建议学生先粘贴案例或案例教材内容。
  • 如果我对该案例不太熟悉：如实告知。“我对这个案例没有足够可靠的了解——请粘贴文本或案例教材内容，我才能据此开展工作。否则我的问题只是有根据的猜测。”

Load context

加载上下文

  • ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/law-student/CLAUDE.md
    → current classes, professors, learning style
  • User-provided: case name / case text / casebook pages / reading list
  • ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/law-student/CLAUDE.md
    → 当前课程、教授信息、学习风格
  • 用户提供的内容：案例名称/案例文本/案例教材页码/阅读清单

Workflow

工作流程

Step 1: Identify the reading + professor

步骤1：确认阅读材料+教授信息

  • Case name and citation
  • Professor (from ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/law-student/CLAUDE.md class list — tone and focus vary by professor)
  • Class / subject area
  • Where this case falls in the syllabus (for context — is this the first case on the topic, a narrowing case, a counterexample?)
  • 案例名称及引用
  • 教授（来自
    ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/law-student/CLAUDE.md
    中的课程列表——教授的授课风格和重点各有不同）
  • 课程/学科领域
  • 该案例在教学大纲中的位置（用于背景参考——是该主题的第一个案例、细化案例还是反例？）

Step 2: Predict the questions

步骤2：预测问题

Professors cold-call in recurring patterns. Predict across these categories:
Facts-level (warm-up):
  • Who are the parties? What happened? Procedural posture?
  • What did the trial court do? The appellate court below?
  • Why is this in the casebook? What subject is it illustrating?
Holding / rule:
  • What's the holding? One sentence.
  • What's the rule that comes out of this case — the portable takeaway?
  • How would you phrase the rule if it were in your outline?
Reasoning:
  • Why did the court decide this way?
  • What arguments did the court reject?
  • Was there a dissent? What did it argue?
Application / hypos:
  • What if [fact X] were different — same outcome?
  • How does this case compare to [prior case in the syllabus]?
  • What's the limiting principle? Where does this rule stop?
Policy / theory:
  • What's the policy the court is protecting?
  • Does this rule make sense? Alternative approaches?
Professor-specific flavor (from ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/law-student/CLAUDE.md notes):
  • If the professor is known for hypo-heavy calls, weight Application/Hypo questions
  • If policy-heavy, weight Policy/Theory
  • If fact-heavy socratic (Socratic 101 Paper Chase style), weight Facts + Holding
Pick 6-10 questions across these categories. Rank by likelihood of being asked first (Facts usually go first, then Holding, then the harder categories).
教授的随机提问有固定模式。需覆盖以下类别：
事实层面（热身）：
  • 当事人是谁？发生了什么？程序状态如何？
  • 初审法院做出了什么判决？下级上诉法院呢？
  • 为什么这个案例会被收录进案例教材？它阐释了什么主题？
判决结果/规则：
  • 判决结果是什么？用一句话概括。
  • 从这个案例中提炼出的可迁移规则是什么？
  • 如果要把这个规则写入你的大纲，你会怎么表述？
推理过程：
  • 法院为何做出此判决？
  • 法院驳回了哪些论点？
  • 有没有异议？异议方的论点是什么？
应用/假设场景：
  • 如果[事实X]发生变化——判决结果会相同吗？
  • 这个案例与教学大纲中的[先前案例]有何异同？
  • 限制原则是什么？这个规则的适用边界在哪里？
政策/理论：
  • 法院旨在保护什么政策？
  • 这个规则合理吗？有哪些替代方案？
教授特定风格（来自
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/law-student/CLAUDE.md
中的备注）：
  • 如果教授以大量假设场景提问著称，增加“应用/假设场景”类问题的权重
  • 如果教授侧重政策，增加“政策/理论”类问题的权重
  • 如果教授采用侧重事实的苏格拉底式提问（《力争上游》式的基础苏格拉底教学法），增加“事实+判决结果”类问题的权重
从这些类别中挑选6-10个问题。按被提问的可能性排序（通常先问事实类问题，然后是判决结果，再是难度更高的类别）。

Step 3: Drill

步骤3：演练

Use the 
socratic-drill
pattern:
  1. Ask Question 1. Wait for answer.
  2. If right + well-reasoned: acknowledge, move to Question 2.
  3. If right but sloppy: don't let it slide. "You got there, but explain — why does the court's reasoning support that?"
  4. If wrong: don't give the answer. Ask a narrowing question. "What facts does the court rely on?" Walk them to it.
  5. If stuck: narrow further. "Before we go to the holding — what's the procedural posture?"
  6. If genuinely lost: tell them to re-read the case. "This is a re-read, not a guess-your-way-through. Come back when you've read it again."
采用
socratic-drill
模式：
  1. 提出问题1，等待回答。
  2. 如果回答正确且推理充分：予以肯定，进入问题2。
  3. 如果回答正确但表述不严谨：不要放过。“你答对了，但请解释——法院的推理为何支持这个结论？”
  4. 如果回答错误：不直接给出答案，提出缩小范围的问题。“法院依赖哪些事实？”引导学生自己得出结论。
  5. 如果学生卡壳：进一步缩小问题范围。“在讨论判决结果之前——程序状态是什么？”
  6. 如果学生完全不知所措：告知他们重读案例。“这需要重读案例，而非猜测。读完后再回来。”

Step 4: Post-drill summary

步骤4：演练后总结

At the end:
markdown
undefined
结束时生成以下总结：
markdown
undefined

Cold-Call Prep — [case] — [date]

随机提问准备 — [案例] — [日期]

Questions drilled: [N] Strong: [questions where they were confident + right] Shaky: [questions where they guessed or hedged] Missed: [questions where they didn't know]
演练的问题数量： [N] 掌握扎实： [学生回答自信且正确的问题] 不熟悉： [学生猜测或含糊其辞的问题] 遗漏： [学生不知道答案的问题]

Before class tomorrow:

明天课前需完成：

  • [specific thing to re-check — facts they got wrong, rule they couldn't state]
  • [if shaky on policy/theory: "read the dissent again — that's usually where policy questions come from"]
  • [需重新核对的具体内容——学生答错的事实、无法表述的规则]
  • [如果对政策/理论不熟悉：“再次阅读异议部分——政策类问题通常来自这里”]

Questions likely to come up in class:

课堂上可能被问到的问题：

  • [top 3 of the 10 — the ones the professor is most likely to lead with]
undefined
  • [10个问题中的前3个——教授最可能首先提出的问题]
undefined

Integration

集成功能

  • case-brief: if the student hasn't briefed the case yet, offer to run 
    /law-student:case-brief
    before cold-call prep. A brief is a cold-call prep tool too.
  • socratic-drill: if prep surfaces a weak spot in the subject (not just this case), follow with 
    /law-student:socratic-drill [subject]
    .
  • flashcards: if the case's rule is one the student should memorize, offer to add to the flashcard deck.
  • case-brief： 如果学生尚未整理案例摘要，可在随机提问准备前提供
    /law-student:case-brief
    功能。案例摘要也是随机提问准备的工具。
  • socratic-drill： 如果准备过程中发现学生在某一学科存在薄弱环节（而非仅针对该案例），可后续使用
    /law-student:socratic-drill [学科]
    功能。
  • flashcards： 如果该案例的规则需要学生记忆，可提供添加到抽认卡卡组的功能。

What this skill does not do

此技能不具备的功能

  • Be the professor. The actual cold-call can go anywhere. This skill predicts patterns; professors surprise.
  • Replace reading the case. If you haven't read it, the skill can't help you — questions require text you've absorbed.
  • Give you the case's holding without asking you first. Drill-me pattern: I ask, you answer.
  • Predict jurisdiction-specific niche questions. If the professor has known hobby horses, capture them in ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/law-student/CLAUDE.md class notes and the skill can weight accordingly; otherwise, it works from general patterns.
  • 替代教授：实际的随机提问可能涉及任何内容。此技能仅预测模式；教授可能会提出意外问题。
  • 替代阅读案例：如果你没读过案例，此技能无法提供帮助——问题需要你已经吸收的文本内容。
  • 未先提问就直接给出案例判决结果：遵循演练模式：我提问，你回答。
  • 预测特定辖区的小众问题：如果教授有已知的研究方向，可在
    ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/law-student/CLAUDE.md
    的课程备注中记录，此技能会相应调整权重；否则，将基于通用模式进行预测。