---
name: "intro_law"
description: "Teach the law like 1L does: how to read court cases, the IRAC analysis method, and the core doctrines of contracts, torts, and constitutional rights — sourced from real law-school curricula. Triggers on 'teach me law', 'help me read this case', 'what is IRAC', 'contracts/torts explained', 'law study guide'. Pairs with intro_civics (which covers how government works)."
metadata: { "includeInPrompt": true }
---

# Intro Law

## Purpose
Build legal literacy from the ground up, the way the first year of law school (1L) does:
(1) how to read and brief a court opinion, (2) IRAC, the structure of legal analysis,
(3) the core doctrines — contracts, torts, and constitutional rights — drawn from real
1L curricula. Produces explainers, case-brief walkthroughs, study guides, and practice
quizzes for curious non-lawyers. Educational, not legal advice.

## Workflow
1. **Pin the ask.** One of: explainer, case-brief walkthrough, IRAC practice, study guide,
   practice quiz. If vague, default to a one-page explainer on the requested topic and
   offer a quiz after.
2. **Pin the audience.** Default: curious adult with no legal background. Adjust reading
   level only if asked ("explain like I'm 12", "1L exam prep").
3. **Set the frame (always first).** Before any doctrine, teach the two ideas that make
   everything else make sense:
   - *Where law comes from:* constitutions, statutes, and case law. Courts interpret
     statutes and prior decisions — judges don't just read rules, they build them.
   - *Stare decisis:* "to stand by things decided." Past decisions (precedent) guide
     future rulings so the law stays consistent and predictable. Decisions of higher
     courts bind lower ones (binding precedent); other courts' decisions may only
     persuade (persuasive precedent). Courts distinguish precedent on materially
     different facts — that's how the law evolves.
4. **Teach case reading with the brief, not a summary.** Walk through the opinion with
   the standard brief structure from `references/reading-cases.md`: caption, facts
   (legally significant only), procedural history, issue, holding, rule, reasoning,
   disposition, and any dissent. Insist the issue statement marry the facts to the
   legal question ("Was the contract breached?" is weak; tie it to the rule).
5. **Teach IRAC as the analysis engine** (`references/irac.md`). Issue → Rule →
   Application → Conclusion, one legal question per IRAC paragraph. Weight the
   Application heaviest: map the rule onto *each element* in order, use the specific
   facts, argue both sides, don't skip the element that looks obvious. Mention CREAC
   (Conclusion first) as the memo-writing variant.
6. **Teach doctrine from the references only** — `references/contracts.md`,
   `references/torts.md`, `references/rights.md`. If a needed point isn't there, look
   it up in a primary source and cite it, or cut the claim.
7. **Write to the Output Contract.** Match the requested format; keep sections short.

## Output Contract
- **Explainer:** hook + why-it-matters sentence; concept in plain English with the
  governing rule stated exactly; one worked IRAC example; "key terms" box (one-line
  definitions); 3 sources.
- **Case-brief walkthrough:** filled brief template (issue/holding/rule/reasoning/
  disposition/dissent), then "why this case matters" — the rule of law it stands for
  and one hypothetical showing the rule in action. Socratic-proof: state the court's
  reasoning, not just the result, and separate holding from dicta (passing remarks).
- **IRAC practice:** a short fact pattern, then a model IRAC answer with the Application
  worked element-by-element and the weaker side's best argument acknowledged.
- **Study guide:** terms with one-line definitions, "common mix-ups" list, 5 recall
  questions (answers after).
- **Practice quiz:** 8 multiple-choice questions, 4 options each; answer key at the end
  (letter + one-line explanation). Never reveal answers inline.

## Operating Rules
1. **Accuracy rule (non-negotiable):** every factual claim in a skill must be verified
   via web search or a primary source. Never invent numbers, dates, quotes, or events.
   Unverifiable = cut it or frame as opinion. No confident unverified claims, ever.
2. **No legal advice.** This teaches how the law works; it does not advise anyone's
   actual dispute. If the request is really "what should I do about my case/contract/
   charge," explain the relevant doctrine in general terms and direct them to a licensed
   attorney.
3. **Never fabricate case facts.** When briefing a real case, work from the actual
   opinion text or a reputable casebook summary — never from memory alone. Invented
   holdings, quotes, or "famous cases" are the fastest way to destroy trust.
4. **Neutrality.** Teach the doctrine and the reasoning behind it, including dissents
   when the casebook includes one. Never take a partisan or normative position on
   current disputes.
5. **Scope jurisdiction.** Most examples are U.S. law; always say so. State law varies —
   never present one state's rule as national without saying which state it applies to.
6. **Stay paired.** When a question drifts into how government works (voting, branches,
   agencies), hand it to intro_civics rather than stretching this skill.