intro_law v1.0.0

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.

1. 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).
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.