memo

/memo

1. 加载 ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/legal-clinic/CLAUDE.md → 执业领域、司法管辖区。
2. 使用以下工作流。阅读接案摘要／案件笔记。
3. 将争议点表述为问题。为每个问题搭建 IRAC 框架——规则部分标记为需研究，分析部分提供学生分析提示，结论部分留空。
4. 总结优势／劣势／待解问题。总结研究缺口。
5. 输出时显著标注“分析由你完成”。

/legal-clinic:memo

---

备忘录：案件内部分析

目的

案件分析备忘录是学生展现思考的地方。此技能提供 IRAC 框架并指出研究缺口——由学生完成分析。

分析由学生完成。 此技能负责搭建结构，不负责下结论。

加载背景信息

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/legal-clinic/CLAUDE.md → 执业领域、司法管辖区、指导风格。 接案摘要和案件笔记用于了解事实。

教学方式检查

阅读该执业领域的督导指南：~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/legal-clinic/guides/<practice-area>.md。检查 pedagogy_posture 设置：

• guide（默认）： 提供 IRAC 结构和研究缺口列表。要求学生自行通过研究起草每条规则陈述，而不是直接提供框架。对学生写的内容提供反馈。只有在学生尝试过一次后，才提出为某一部分补充框架规则。
• assist： 提供备忘录框架，并填写能够填写的内容。标出需要学生审阅的项目。学生通过编辑和审阅来学习。（注意：此备忘录技能始终会按设计将 [STUDENT ANALYSIS] 和 [STUDENT CONCLUSION] 部分留空——assist 表示技能提供 IRAC 框架和框架规则陈述；不会代写分析或结论。）
• teach： 不提供框架或框架内容。要求学生提出争议点、陈述其研究所得的规则，并进行分析。然后提供反馈。学生遇到困难时，提出引导性问题。只有在学生尝试两次后，才提供规则陈述范例或分析段落范例，并且仅针对学生遇到困难的部分。记录学生答对和答错的内容，以便督导了解其进展。

如果没有指南，则使用 guide。如果指南存在但未设置教学方式，则使用 guide。

无论采用哪种教学方式，输出中始终包含：“教学模式：[assist/guide/teach] — 由督导的指南设定。这意味着我[说明学生完成了什么，以及此技能完成了什么]。”

工作流

第 1 步：提出争议点

根据接案摘要和案件笔记，确定本案涉及哪些法律问题。

将每个问题表述为疑问句。不要只写“适居性”，而应写“客户能否以暖气损坏为由提出适居性抗辩来反对驱逐？如果可以，该抗辩能否抵扣所欠租金？”

如果存在多个问题，则每个问题都应有各自的 IRAC 部分。

Step 2：搭建 IRAC 框架

针对每个问题：

问题： 以问句形式陈述（来自 Step 1）。

规则： 这是一个研究缺口，而非结论。说明学生需要查明什么：

[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.]

如果该技能对一般规则框架有较高把握（例如“多数州承认默示的适居性保证”），可以将其作为框架起点陈述——但必须明确标注为未经核实：

框架（未经核实——请确认是否适用于 [State]）： 多数法域承认默示的适居性保证，要求房东维持适宜人类居住的条件。违反该保证可能产生扣留租金、维修后抵扣租金或减租的救济。 [VERIFY: [State]'s specific elements and remedies]

适用： 学生在此进行分析。搭建结构，不要代为填写：

`[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?]`

列出重要事实。由学生自行进行适用分析。

结论： 明确留空：

[STUDENT CONCLUSION: Based on your research and analysis above, what's the likely outcome? How strong is this defense? What are the weaknesses?]

Step 3：找出优势、弱点和待解决的问题

在 IRAC 模块之后单独设置一个部分：

优势（从事实中显而易见——学生应验证）：

• [看似有利的事实及其原因]

弱点（从事实中显而易见——学生应评估其严重程度）：

• [看似不利的事实及其原因]
• [UNCERTAIN: whether [X] is actually a weakness — depends on [State] rule on [Y]]

待解决的问题（备忘录在缺少更多信息时无法回答的问题）：

• 事实方面：[尚未从客户处了解的信息]
• 法律方面：[需要研究的内容]
• 策略方面：[由学生／教授作出判断的问题]

输出

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
  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.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

# Case Analysis Memo: [Client] — [Matter]

**Date:** [date] | **By:** [student] | **For:** [Professor]

---

## Bottom line

[Take the case / Decline because X / Need more info on Y — next step is Z]

---

## Issues Presented

1. [Issue as question]
2. [Issue as question]

---

## Issue 1: [Issue]

### Rule

[Framework starting point with VERIFY flags, and RESEARCH NEEDED blocks]

### Application

[STUDENT ANALYSIS scaffold with the facts that matter]

### Conclusion

[STUDENT CONCLUSION — blank]

---

[repeat for each issue]

---

## Strengths

[list with caveats]

## Weaknesses

[list with UNCERTAIN flags where applicable]

## Open Questions

**Factual:** [list]
**Legal:** [list — these feed /research-start]
**Strategic:** [list — these are for discussion with Professor]

---

## Research gaps summary

[Every RESEARCH NEEDED block pulled out into one list, so the student can
work through them systematically — and can run /research-start on each]

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

## What this memo is NOT

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, 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]`, 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.

此技能不会做什么

• 代写分析。 它会搭建 IRAC 框架并标出缺口，由学生推理并进行适用分析。
• 提供已核实的规则。 每条规则陈述在学生完成研究前都会明确标注为未经核实。
• 得出结论。 IRAC 中的 C 刻意留空。
• 取代与教授的交流。 “待解决的问题／策略”部分是与教授交流的议程，而非替代品。

以“下一步决策树”收尾

按照 CLAUDE.md ## Outputs 中的要求，以“下一步决策树”收尾。根据此技能刚刚生成的内容定制选项——五个默认分支（起草 X、升级处理、获取更多事实、观察等待、其他事项）只是起点，并非固定选项。决策树就是输出；由律师作出选择。