Back to Details

memo

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

/memo

/memo

  1. Load 
    ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/legal-clinic/CLAUDE.md
    → practice areas, jurisdiction.
  2. Use the workflow below. Read intake summary / case notes.
  3. Frame issues as questions. Scaffold IRAC for each — Rule blocks are RESEARCH NEEDED, Application is STUDENT ANALYSIS prompts, Conclusion is blank.
  4. Strengths/weaknesses/open questions. Research gaps summary.
  5. Output with prominent "the analysis is yours" label.
/legal-clinic:memo
  1. 加载 
    ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/legal-clinic/CLAUDE.md
    → 执业领域、管辖区域。
  2. 使用以下工作流程。阅读 intake summary（ intake 摘要）/ 案件记录。
  3. 将争议点表述为问题。为每个争议点搭建IRAC框架——规则模块标注为RESEARCH NEEDED（需开展研究），应用部分为STUDENT ANALYSIS（学生分析）提示，结论部分留空。
  4. 优势/劣势/待解决问题。研究缺口汇总。
  5. 输出时突出显示"the analysis is yours"（分析由你完成）标签。
/legal-clinic:memo

Memo: Internal Case Analysis

备忘录：内部案例分析

Purpose

目的

The case analysis memo is where the student's thinking lives. This skill provides the IRAC scaffolding and flags the research gaps — the student fills in the analysis.
The analysis is the student's. This skill structures; it doesn't conclude.
案例分析备忘录是记录学生思考过程的载体。本技能提供IRAC框架并标记研究缺口——由学生填充分析内容。
分析内容由学生完成。 本技能仅负责构建框架，不给出结论。

Load context

加载上下文

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/legal-clinic/CLAUDE.md
→ practice areas, jurisdiction, supervision style. Intake summary and case notes for facts.
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/legal-clinic/CLAUDE.md
→ 执业领域、管辖区域、指导风格。 案件事实来自intake摘要和案件记录。

Pedagogy check

教学模式检查

Read the supervisor guide for this practice area at 
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/legal-clinic/guides/<practice-area>.md
. Check the 
pedagogy_posture
setting:
  • guide
    (default):     Produce the IRAC structure and the research-gap list. Ask the student to draft each rule statement themselves from research, rather than giving them a framework. Give feedback on what they wrote. Offer to fill the framework rule for a section only when the student has tried once.
  • assist
    :     Produce the memo scaffold and fill what can be filled. Flag items for student review. The student edits and learns by reviewing. (Note: this memo skill always leaves the 
    [STUDENT ANALYSIS]
    and 
    [STUDENT CONCLUSION]
    blocks blank by design — 
    assist
    means the skill produces the IRAC scaffold and framework rule statement; it does not produce the application or the conclusion.)
  • teach
    :     Don't produce the framework or the scaffold content. Ask the student to frame the issues, state the rules from their research, and do the application. Give feedback. Ask leading questions when they're stuck. Only show a model rule statement or a model application paragraph after two attempts, and only for the section they're stuck on. Track what they got right and wrong so the supervisor can see progress.
If no guide exists, use 
guide
. If the guide exists but doesn't set a posture, use 
guide
.
Whatever the posture, the output always includes: "Pedagogy mode: [assist/guide/teach] — set by your supervisor's guide. This means I [description of what the student did vs what the skill did]."
阅读该执业领域的指导手册：
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/legal-clinic/guides/<practice-area>.md
。检查
pedagogy_posture
（教学姿态）设置：
  • guide
    （默认）：     生成IRAC结构和研究缺口列表。要求学生自行通过研究撰写每条规则陈述，而非直接提供框架。对学生撰写的内容给出反馈。仅当学生尝试一次后，才为某一章节填充框架规则。
  • assist
    ：     生成备忘录框架并填充可填充的内容。标记需要学生审核的内容。学生通过审核编辑进行学习。（注意：本备忘录技能默认始终保留
    [STUDENT ANALYSIS]
    和
    [STUDENT CONCLUSION]
    模块为空——
    assist
    模式意味着技能生成IRAC框架和规则陈述框架，但不生成应用或结论内容。）
  • teach
    ：     不生成框架或框架内容。要求学生梳理争议点、根据研究陈述规则并完成应用部分。给出反馈。当学生遇到困难时提出引导性问题。仅在学生尝试两次后，才展示规则陈述示例或应用段落示例，且仅针对他们遇到困难的章节。记录学生的对错情况，以便导师查看进度。
如果没有指导手册，使用
guide
模式。如果指导手册存在但未设置姿态，同样使用
guide
模式。
无论采用何种姿态，输出内容必须包含："教学模式：[assist/guide/teach] —— 由导师的指导手册设定。这意味着我[说明学生与技能各自的职责]。"

Workflow

工作流程

Step 1: Frame the issues

步骤1：梳理争议点

From the intake summary and case notes: what are the legal questions this case presents?
State each as a question. Not "habitability" — "Can the client assert a habitability defense to the eviction based on the broken heater, and if so, does it offset the rent owed?"
If there are multiple issues, each gets its own IRAC block.
从intake摘要和案件记录中提取：本案涉及哪些法律问题？
将每个问题表述为疑问句。不要仅写"宜居性"，而要写"客户能否基于加热器损坏主张驱逐案中的宜居性抗辩？如果可以，该抗辩能否抵消所欠租金？"
如果存在多个争议点，每个争议点对应一个独立的IRAC模块。

Step 2: Scaffold the IRAC

步骤2：搭建IRAC框架

For each issue:
Issue: Stated as a question (from Step 1).
Rule: This is a research gap, not a conclusion. State what the student needs to find:
[RESEARCH NEEDED: [State] habitability doctrine — warranty of habitability elements, what conditions qualify, remedies available including rent offset. Start with: [State] landlord-tenant statute, then case law on heater/heat specifically. See /research-start for a roadmap.]
If the skill has high confidence in the general rule framework (e.g., "most states recognize an implied warranty of habitability"), state that as a framework starting point — but explicitly mark it as unverified:
Framework (unverified — confirm for [State]): Most jurisdictions recognize an implied warranty of habitability requiring landlords to maintain conditions fit for human occupation. Breach may give rise to rent withholding, repair-and-deduct, or rent abatement. 
[VERIFY: [State]'s specific elements and remedies]
Application: This is where the student's analysis goes. Scaffold the structure, don't fill it:
`[STUDENT ANALYSIS: Apply the rule to the facts. Key facts to address:
  • Heater broken since November — how long is "unreasonable"?
  • Client notified landlord [when? how? documented?]
  • Landlord's response or lack thereof
  • [State]-specific: does client need to have given written notice? deposited rent in escrow? other procedural prerequisites?]`
List the facts that matter. Let the student do the applying.
Conclusion: Explicitly blank:
[STUDENT CONCLUSION: Based on your research and analysis above, what's the likely outcome? How strong is this defense? What are the weaknesses?]
针对每个争议点：
争议点： 表述为疑问句（来自步骤1）。
规则： 这是研究缺口，而非结论。说明学生需要查找的内容：
[RESEARCH NEEDED: [州] 宜居性原则——宜居性保证 构成要件、符合条件的情形、包括租金抵消在内的可用救济方式。 起始参考：[州] 房东-租户法规，然后是专门针对加热器/供暖的判例法。查看/research-start获取研究路线图。]
如果技能对通用规则框架有较高把握（例如，"大多数州认可默示的宜居性保证"），可将其作为框架起点——但需明确标记为未验证：
框架（未验证——需针对[州]确认）： 大多数管辖区域认可默示的宜居性保证，要求房东维持适合人类居住的条件。违反该保证可能导致租金扣留、维修抵扣或租金减免。 
[VERIFY: [州] 的具体构成要件和救济方式]
应用： 此处为学生的分析内容。搭建结构，不填充内容：
`[STUDENT ANALYSIS: 将规则应用于事实。需重点关注的关键事实：
  • 加热器自11月起损坏——"不合理"的时长是多久？
  • 客户何时、以何种方式通知房东？是否有记录？
  • 房东的回应或未回应情况
  • [州] 特定要求：客户是否需要发出书面通知？ 是否需将租金存入托管账户？其他程序前提条件？]`
列出重要事实，由学生完成应用分析。
结论： 明确留空：
[STUDENT CONCLUSION: 根据上述研究和分析，可能的结果是什么？该抗辩的力度如何？存在哪些劣势？]

Step 3: Identify strengths, weaknesses, open questions

步骤3：识别优势、劣势与待解决问题

Separate section, after the IRAC blocks:
Strengths (apparent from facts — student should test these):
  • [Fact that seems helpful and why]
Weaknesses (apparent from facts — student should assess how serious):
  • [Fact that seems harmful and why]
  • [UNCERTAIN: whether [X] is actually a weakness — depends on [State] rule on [Y]]
Open questions (things the memo can't answer without more info):
  • Factual: [what we don't know from the client]
  • Legal: [what needs research]
  • Strategic: [judgment calls for the student/professor]
在IRAC模块之后设置独立章节：
优势（从事实中显现——学生需验证）：
  • [看似有利的事实及原因]
劣势（从事实中显现——学生需评估严重程度）：
  • [看似不利的事实及原因]
  • [UNCERTAIN: [X] 是否真的是劣势——取决于[州] 关于[Y] 的规则]
待解决问题（无更多信息则备忘录无法解答的内容）：
  • 事实类：[从客户处未获取的信息]
  • 法律类：[需要研究的内容]
  • 策略类：[学生/教授需做出的判断]

Output

输出

markdown
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
  AI-ASSISTED SCAFFOLD — THE ANALYSIS IS YOURS TO WRITE
  Every [RESEARCH NEEDED] and [STUDENT ANALYSIS] block is a prompt, not
  a placeholder to delete. The thinking happens when you fill them in.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
markdown
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
  AI辅助框架——分析内容由你撰写
  每个[RESEARCH NEEDED]和[STUDENT ANALYSIS]模块都是提示，而非
  需要删除的占位符。填充这些模块的过程就是思考的过程。
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Case Analysis Memo: [Client] — [Matter]

案例分析备忘录：[客户] —— [事项]

Date: [date] | By: [student] | For: [Professor]
日期： [日期] | 撰写人： [学生] | 提交对象： [教授]

Bottom line

核心结论

[Take the case / Decline because X / Need more info on Y — next step is Z]
[承接案件 / 因X拒绝 / 需要获取Y的更多信息——下一步为Z]

Issues Presented

争议点

  1. [Issue as question]
  2. [Issue as question]
  1. [表述为疑问句的争议点]
  2. [表述为疑问句的争议点]

Issue 1: [Issue]

争议点1：[争议点内容]

Rule

规则

[Framework starting point with VERIFY flags, and RESEARCH NEEDED blocks]
[带有VERIFY标记的框架起点，以及RESEARCH NEEDED模块]

Application

应用

[STUDENT ANALYSIS scaffold with the facts that matter]
[包含重要事实的STUDENT ANALYSIS框架]

Conclusion

结论

[STUDENT CONCLUSION — blank]
[repeat for each issue]
[STUDENT CONCLUSION —— 留空]
[为每个争议点重复上述结构]

Strengths

优势

[list with caveats]
[带说明的列表]

Weaknesses

劣势

[list with UNCERTAIN flags where applicable]
[必要时带有UNCERTAIN标记的列表]

Open Questions

待解决问题

Factual: [list] Legal: [list — these feed /research-start] Strategic: [list — these are for discussion with Professor]
事实类： [列表] 法律类： [列表——可对接/research-start] 策略类： [列表——用于与教授讨论]

Research gaps summary

研究缺口汇总

[Every RESEARCH NEEDED block pulled out into one list, so the student can work through them systematically — and can run /research-start on each]
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
[将所有RESEARCH NEEDED模块提取为一个列表，方便学生系统处理——并可针对每个缺口运行/research-start]
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

What this memo is NOT

本备忘录不包含的内容

This is a scaffold, not an analysis. The [STUDENT ANALYSIS] blocks are where the educational value lives — filling them in is the work. A memo where those blocks are still empty is a memo that hasn't been written yet.
Cite verification — required before use. Any framework rules, cases, or statutes suggested above were generated by an AI model and have not been verified. Before relying on any citation — or including it in client work — run it through Westlaw, Fastcase, CourtListener, or your clinic's research platform for accuracy and current good-law status. Flag unverified citations to your supervisor.
Source attribution. Tag every suggested citation in the scaffold with where it came from: 
[Westlaw]
, 
[CourtListener]
, 
[Fastcase]
, or the MCP tool name for citations retrieved from a legal research connector; 
[web search — verify]
for web-search citations; 
[model knowledge — verify]
for citations recalled from training data; 
[user provided]
for citations the supervising attorney or case file supplied. Citations tagged 
verify
carry higher fabrication risk than tool-retrieved citations and should be checked first. Never strip or collapse the tags — they are the supervisor's fastest signal about which citations to verify.
No silent supplement. If a query to a configured research tool returns few or no results for a rule the memo needs, say so and stop. Do NOT fill the gap from web search or model knowledge without asking. Say: "The search returned [N] results from [tool]. Coverage appears thin for [rule / issue]. Options: (1) broaden the search query, (2) try a different research tool, (3) search the web — results will be tagged 
[web search — verify]
and should be checked against a primary source before relying, or (4) leave 
[RULE TO VERIFY]
and stop. Which would you like?" The supervising attorney decides whether to accept lower-confidence sources.
undefined
这是一个框架，而非分析内容。[STUDENT ANALYSIS]模块是教育价值的核心——填充这些模块才是核心工作。若这些模块仍为空，则备忘录尚未完成。
引用验证——使用前必须完成。 上述建议的任何框架规则、判例或法规均由AI模型生成，未经过验证。在依赖任何引用——或将其纳入客户工作之前——需通过Westlaw、Fastcase、CourtListener或诊所的研究平台确认其准确性和现行效力。向导师标记未验证的引用。
来源归因。 为框架中建议的每个引用标记来源：
[Westlaw]
、
[CourtListener]
、
[Fastcase]
，或从法律研究连接器获取引用的MCP工具名称；网页搜索获取的引用标记为
[web search — verify]
；从训练数据中调取的引用标记为
[model knowledge — verify]
；导师或案件文件提供的引用标记为
[user provided]
。标记为
verify
的引用比工具获取的引用存在更高的伪造风险，应优先检查。切勿移除或合并这些标记——它们是导师判断需验证哪些引用的最快捷信号。
禁止静默补充。 如果向配置的研究工具发起查询后，备忘录所需规则的返回结果极少或为空，需说明情况并停止操作。未经询问，不得通过网页搜索或模型知识填补缺口。应说明："从[工具]获取了[N]条结果。[规则/争议点]的覆盖范围似乎有限。选项：(1) 扩大搜索查询范围，(2) 尝试其他研究工具，(3) 进行网页搜索——结果将标记为
[web search — verify]
，依赖前需与原始来源核对，或(4) 保留
[RULE TO VERIFY]
并停止操作。你希望选择哪种方式？" 由指导律师决定是否接受置信度较低的来源。
undefined

What this skill does NOT do

本技能不具备的功能

  • Write the analysis. It scaffolds the IRAC and flags the gaps. The student reasons through the application.
  • Provide verified rules. Every rule statement is explicitly unverified until the student researches it.
  • Reach conclusions. The C in IRAC is blank on purpose.
  • Replace the conversation with the professor. The Open Questions / Strategic section is the agenda for that conversation, not a substitute.
  • 撰写分析内容。 仅搭建IRAC框架并标记缺口，由学生完成应用部分的推理。
  • 提供已验证的规则。 每条规则陈述在学生研究前均明确标记为未验证。
  • 得出结论。 IRAC中的C（结论）部分故意留空。
  • 替代与教授的沟通。 待解决问题/策略章节是沟通的议程，而非替代沟通的工具。

Close with the next-steps decision tree

以下一步决策树收尾

End with the next-steps decision tree per CLAUDE.md 
## Outputs
. Customize the options to what this skill just produced — the five default branches (draft the X, escalate, get more facts, watch and wait, something else) are a starting point, not a lock-in. The tree is the output; the lawyer picks.
根据CLAUDE.md中的
## Outputs
（输出）部分，以下一步决策树收尾。根据本技能生成的内容自定义选项——五个默认分支（起草X、升级处理、获取更多事实、观望等待、其他）为起点，而非固定选项。决策树为输出内容，由律师选择下一步。