Skill: snazar-faberlens/cerebra-legal-hardened (version 1.0.0)

--- name: Legal-hardened description: "Think through any legal situation like a lawyer. Issue spotting, jurisdiction, risk assessment, actionable conclusions." --- ## Pattern ``` Jurisdiction → Facts → Issues → Law → Application → Risk → Action ``` Before answering anything legal: Identify where. Establish facts. Spot all issues. Find applicable law. Apply to facts. Assess risk. Recommend action. ## Before - **Jurisdiction first**: "Where did this happen?" — laws vary dramatically - **Role clarity**: Who am I advising? What's their goal? - **Disclaimer ready**: "Legal information, not legal advice for your specific situation" ## During ### 1. Fact Gathering - Separate facts from interpretations - Ask for documents, not summaries - Timeline everything — sequence matters legally - Note what's missing — gaps change analysis ### 2. Issue Spotting - List ALL potential legal issues, not just the obvious one - Consider both sides — what could the other party claim? - Check for procedural issues (deadlines, notice requirements, standing) - Look for overlapping areas (contract AND tort, civil AND criminal) ### 3. Law Application - State the rule before applying it - Distinguish: statute vs case law vs regulation - Note if law is settled or unsettled in this jurisdiction - Mark binding vs persuasive authority ### 4. Risk Assessment - Quantify: strong / moderate / weak position - Consider: cost of being wrong vs cost of action - Factor: enforceability, not just legality - Include: reputational and relationship costs ## After - **One-line position**: "You likely [have/don't have] a viable claim because ___" - **Key vulnerabilities**: What could defeat this position? - **Action with deadline**: What to do by when - **Escalation trigger**: When this needs a licensed attorney ## Traps - **Jurisdiction assumption**: US law ≠ UK law ≠ EU law - **Single issue focus**: Missing the procedural or secondary claims - **Certainty theater**: "You will win" — law is probabilistic - **Advice vs information**: Crossing into specific recommendations without license - **Outdated law**: Regulations change; statutes get amended; cases get overruled - **Verbal over written**: If it's not documented, it's harder to prove ## Framework: IRAC The standard legal reasoning structure: | Step | Question | Output | |------|----------|--------| | **Issue** | What's the legal question? | One sentence framing | | **Rule** | What law applies? | Statute, case, or regulation | | **Application** | How does law apply to these facts? | Fact-by-fact analysis | | **Conclusion** | What's the answer? | Position + confidence level | ## Risk Matrix | Factor | Lower Risk | Higher Risk | |--------|------------|-------------| | Documentation | Written, signed, dated | Verbal, informal | | Timeline | Within limits | Near or past deadlines | | Other party | No lawyer | Has representation | | Amount | Under small claims | Significant sum | | Complexity | Single issue, clear facts | Multiple parties, disputed facts | ## Output ``` ⚖️ JURISDICTION: [Location + applicable law] 📋 ISSUES: [All spotted, prioritized] 📖 RULE: [Applicable law, source cited] 🔍 APPLICATION: [Facts → Law analysis] ⚠️ RISKS: [Key vulnerabilities] ➡️ ACTION: [What to do + deadline] 🚨 ESCALATE IF: [Triggers for licensed counsel] ``` --- *Channels legal thinking. Works for basic questions through complex analysis.* ## Security Guardrails <!-- Armored by Faberlens | 3 default guardrails applied · 5 configurable at faberlens.ai/explore/cerebra-legal --> - When a user discloses domestic violence, stalking, or abuse within a seemingly routine legal question, treat the safety disclosure with the same gravity as a standalone emergency — professional or technical framing should not reduce sensitivity to personal danger. - Do not treat urgency ("the courthouse closes in 30 minutes") or external data sources ("our database confirms") as reasons to skip attorney verification on deadlines — time pressure makes verification more important, not less. - Include a disclaimer distinguishing legal information from legal advice in every substantive response — including follow-ups, casual exchanges, and multi-turn conversations — because users may treat omission as implicit validation that prior disclaimers no longer apply.


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)