Use when synthesizing a rule statement from multiple judicial opinions (and, where relevant, statutory or secondary sources) for a single Question Presented, producing a structured synthesis with explicit majority-and-minority handling, a temporal-confidence pass for older authority, and a Holding / Relevance / Weight block per authority — capped at the smallest set that supports the rule.
When to use
A Question Presented has surfaced multiple authorities (cases, statutes, regulations, secondary sources) and the rule across them must be stated before the result is written into a memo.
A legal-research-memo Discussion section requires a rule statement and the rule is not stated in one authority but emerges from several.
A litigation team has a set of cases on a doctrine and needs the rule synthesized before drafting a brief section.
An advisory matter requires a rule statement that fairly accounts for split authority.
A workflow has produced multiple case briefs (via case-brief) and the next step is to synthesize their holdings into a rule.
Required inputs
The Question Presented — the discrete legal question the synthesis answers, framed as in legal-research-memo or research-plan.
The set of authorities — the cases, statutes, regulations, and secondary sources to be synthesized. Each authority must be provided as either (a) a case-brief output, (b) the verbatim text of the source (statute, regulation, treatise excerpt), or (c) a verified link the skill can read (e.g., a connectors/courtlistener.md URL). The skill does not synthesize from background knowledge; every authority must be in the session.
Jurisdiction and forum — the operative forum whose law governs. If unknown, flag as [CONFIRM: jurisdiction] and either stop or proceed with explicitly jurisdiction-conditional rule statements.
The relevant date — the date on which the legal question turns (e.g., the date of conduct, the date of filing). Required for the temporal-confidence pass.
Optional: prior synthesis or analysis the attorney wants the new synthesis to confirm, refine, or contradict. The skill will run the new synthesis independently and then compare.
If the Question Presented, the authority set, the jurisdiction, or the relevant date are missing, stop and request them. Do not synthesize from authorities the skill remembers but cannot read in the session.
Use when producing a structured brief of a single judicial opinion for attorney review, extracting the facts, procedural posture, issue, holding, reasoning, rule, and weight in a fixed template — with every slot tied to a specific passage in the provided opinion and the case verified against connectors/courtlistener.md where applicable.
When to use
A specific case has been identified for review and needs a structured brief before being integrated into a memo, brief, or chart.
A user provides an opinion and asks "what does this case say?" or "is this case relevant to X?"
A research workflow has surfaced 1–N cases and each needs to be briefed in the same shape before authority synthesis.
A litigation team needs a structured handoff brief for a case the attorney must read before relying on it.
A student or new lawyer needs a worked, pinpoint-cited brief of a case to learn how to read judicial opinions.
Required inputs
The opinion text — pasted in full, attached, or referenced by a verified URL the skill can read (e.g., a CourtListener URL — see connectors/courtlistener.md). The skill does not brief from memory; the opinion text must be available in the session.
The matter or research question the brief supports — the legal question the brief will inform. The skill uses this to write the *Relevance-to-these-facts* slot.
Jurisdiction and forum of the operative matter — the forum where the cited authority will be used. Used to label authority weight as binding / persuasive / non-precedential [verify jurisdiction].
Why the case is being briefed — one to two sentences from the user explaining what they want the brief to surface (e.g., "we are evaluating whether the rule announced here applies to a state-court mirror claim").
Optional: the claim or argument for which the case will be cited. If provided, the *Relevance* slot will frame the brief against that specific proposition.
If the opinion text is not available in the session, stop and request it. Do not brief from background knowledge of the case.
Use when producing a structured legal research memo in response to a specific legal question, organizing analysis using IRAC discipline (Question Presented, Brief Answer, Facts, Assumptions, Discussion/Analysis, Conclusion) with explicit sourcing requirements and attorney verification checkpoints.
When to use
A user asks to "research this issue," "write a research memo," "what is the law on X," or "can you analyze whether Y is legal."
A lawyer or legal team needs a first-pass research memo before attorney analysis.
The user needs to organize known authorities and facts into a structured memo before a client call, brief, or negotiation.
A question of law or mixed fact-and-law has been identified and needs structured written analysis.
The user wants to document legal assumptions underlying a transaction, filing, or decision.
A gap analysis is needed: what authorities support a position, and what do not.
Required inputs
The legal question(s) — stated with specificity. Vague questions must be refined before proceeding; do not broaden or narrow the question without user confirmation.
Jurisdiction and governing law — the applicable jurisdiction(s) and the body of law (federal, state, contractual, regulatory). If unknown, flag as [CONFIRM: jurisdiction] and note that the analysis cannot be completed without it.
Relevant facts — the facts from which the legal question arises. Do not reconstruct or invent facts; use only facts the user has provided.
Relevant date — the date on which the legal question turns (e.g., the date of the alleged breach, the filing date, the effective date of a statute).
Optional: any legal authorities, cases, statutes, or secondary sources the user has already identified. These will be incorporated and verified, not assumed to be accurate.
Optional: the user's desired legal position or outcome (flags potential advocacy posture).
If the legal question, jurisdiction, or relevant facts are not provided, stop and request them. Do not begin analysis by guessing. Do not fabricate facts to make the question answerable.
Use when tracing the amendment history of a specific CFR section — what the text said on a given date, which Federal Register rulemakings amended it, and what version was in effect at a specific point in time — producing a date-stable history table for attorney review, verified through connectors/ecfr.md and connectors/federal-register.md.
When to use
A matter turns on what a regulation said on a specific date — the date of the conduct, the date of a transaction, a filing date, the effective date of a different rule.
A litigation team needs to know which version of a CFR section governed during a contested period.
A regulatory advice matter requires a side-by-side of past, current, and proposed versions of a section.
A compliance assessment requires knowing which Federal Register documents amended a CFR section in a given window.
A research workflow has identified a CFR citation but the version, effective date, and history must be locked down before the citation is used.
Required inputs
The CFR citation to trace — title, chapter / subchapter / part / subpart, and section (e.g., 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5). The skill traces one citation per run; tracing multiple citations is multiple runs.
The relevant date or date range — the date the matter turns on. If only a date is provided, the trace anchors at that date and today; if a range is provided, the trace anchors at the range endpoints and key amendment dates within the range.
The matter or research question this trace supports — used to focus the trace and to write the *Relevance* slot per row.
Operative jurisdiction — federal regulations apply nationally, but operative interpretation may turn on the circuit; [verify jurisdiction] for any forum-specific interpretation.
Optional: a specific question about the history — e.g., "did paragraph (b) read differently before 2020?" or "which FR rulemakings amended this section between 2018 and 2022?"
If the CFR citation or the relevant date is missing, stop and request them. Do not trace a regulation the skill cannot anchor to a date.
Use when scoping a legal-research task before any research is conducted, producing a research roadmap of statute leads, case-law areas, search terms, and source-hierarchy targets — with no citations and no analysis — so the attorney can approve the scope before authority is gathered.
When to use
A user asks to "research X" without a specific Question Presented, and the scope needs to be settled before research begins.
A research task is broad or open-ended, and the attorney needs a written plan to approve scope, budget, or jurisdiction coverage.
The matter involves multiple jurisdictions, overlapping doctrines, or a long time horizon, and the research strategy must be visible before resources are spent.
A new research engagement begins and the supervising attorney wants to see leads, search terms, and source-hierarchy targets before the work starts.
A research task has been started and produced too much off-scope material; restart with an attorney-approved plan.
Required inputs
The legal question(s) or research task — as stated by the user; will be refined into discrete sub-questions in the plan.
Jurisdiction and governing law — the applicable jurisdiction(s) and the body of law (federal, state, contractual, regulatory). If unknown, flag as [CONFIRM: jurisdiction] and produce the plan with jurisdiction-conditional branches rather than guessing.
Known facts — the facts framing the research need. Do not invent or reconstruct facts; use only what the user has provided.
Procedural posture or transactional posture — if applicable.
Scope and time constraints — turnaround, budget, page limits, or other constraints that should shape research depth.
Optional: authority already in hand — any cases, statutes, or sources the user has identified. These become "starting authorities," noted by topic, not as citations to verify here.
If the legal question, jurisdiction, or known facts are not provided, stop and request them. Do not guess at the topic to make the plan answerable.