菜单
Grade an IRAC essay for structure, issue-spotting, rule accuracy, analysis depth, and organization. Does NOT rewrite the essay or show a model answer; tracks patterns across sessions. Use when the user says "grade my IRAC", "check my essay", or "I wrote this, give me feedback".
默认使用会先检查来源的 Prompt；你也可以切换为直接命令，或下载本地副本。
决定是否安装前，请先阅读 SKILL.md，以及 SkillsMP 当前展示的配套文件。
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
直接命令不会经过审查 Prompt；运行前请先检查来源。
npx skills add https://github.com/ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open --skill irac-practice命令会保持在同一行。复制前请横向滚动并检查完整内容。
想先保存到本地？可下载 SkillsMP 当前能够提供的文件。
Use when retrieving arbitration institutional rules (ICC, LCIA, SCC, SIAC, HKIAC, VIAC, МКАС/МАК при ТПП України, UNCITRAL) — fetching current version, verifying redaction applicable to the date of arbitration agreement, constructing URLs for official rule texts
Use when choosing the Polish legal regime for letters, requests, applications, complaints, petitions, public-information requests, KPA filings, PPSA complaints, RODO access requests, registry extracts, court-file access, tax/ZUS/cudzoziemcy/USC procedures, or professional lawyer letters. Prevents mixing UDIP, KPA, PPSA, RODO, registry, special-procedure, and advocate/radca letter regimes.
Use when preparing applications for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Poland, applications for setting aside arbitral awards under KPC art. 1205–1211, or opposing such applications — mapping Article V of the 1958 New York Convention to art. 1214–1215 of the Polish KPC, identifying grounds for refusal, structuring public policy arguments
基于 SOC 职业分类
正在显示 SKILL.md
| name | irac-practice |
| title | $law-student:irac-practice |
| description | Grade an IRAC essay for structure, issue-spotting, rule accuracy, analysis depth, and organization. Does NOT rewrite the essay or show a model answer; tracks patterns across sessions. Use when the user says "grade my IRAC", "check my essay", or "I wrote this, give me feedback". |
| author | alexchlou |
| author_url | https://github.com/alexchlou/codex-for-legal/tree/main/plugins/law-student/skills/irac-practice |
| license | Apache-2.0 |
| version | 0.1.0 |
| execution_mode | open |
| jurisdiction | general |
| practice | general |
| language | en |
Codex v1 local-input note: This migrated skill supports local files and pasted text by default. References to Drive, CLM IDs, Slack, Westlaw, iManage, Ironclad, eDiscovery, dockets, or other remote systems require a separately configured Codex connector/MCP server. When a connector is unavailable, ask for a local export, local file path, or pasted excerpts. If
config/local/codex-for-legal/<practice>/CLAUDE.mdis missing, ask the user to run the relevantcold-start-intervieworcustomizeskill and copy fromconfig/templates/codex-for-legal/<practice>/CLAUDE.md.
config/local/codex-for-legal/law-student/CLAUDE.md → classes, exam formats, outline locations, learning style.config/local/codex-for-legal/law-student/irac-sessions/[student]/tracker.md for pattern detection. Surface patterns after 3+ sessions.If the question the student is asking sounds like it's about a REAL situation — their lease, their parking ticket, their family's business, their friend's arrest, a real dollar amount, a real deadline, a real party name — stop.
"This sounds like a real situation, not a hypothetical. I can't give you legal advice, and you can't give it either — you're not a lawyer yet. If this is real, [the person] needs an actual lawyer: legal aid, your school's clinic, a lawyer referral service (your jurisdiction's bar association, law society, or legal aid body), or (if there's money) a private attorney. I'm happy to help you understand the general legal concepts involved, but that's study, not advice."
Watch for: real names, real addresses, real dates, specific dollar amounts, "my landlord/boss/parent/friend," "I got a ticket/letter/notice," deadlines measured in days. Any one of these is a trigger.
1L writing is mostly IRAC. 2L-3L writing that touches legal analysis is IRAC under the hood. The exam rewards structure as much as content. This skill grades structure — did you spot the issues, did you state the rules correctly, did you apply rules to facts or just restate both?
Does not rewrite the essay. Ever. The whole point is that you learn by writing, getting specific structural feedback, and rewriting yourself.
[UNCERTAIN] if it's a debatable issue-call where reasonable graders disagree.[VERIFY] on anything I'm not certain about. I do not silently fail your correct rule statement because I wasn't sure.config/local/codex-for-legal/law-student/CLAUDE.md → current classes, exam formats, outline locations, learning styleconfig/local/codex-for-legal/law-student/irac-sessions/[student]/tracker.md if exists — pattern tracking across sessionsTwo modes:
If skill-generated, the hypo itself follows the same confidence rules — the skill flags any sub-issue it's less confident about.
Don't skim. Read the student's answer as if grading it. Map it against expected IRAC components:
Output per component. No rewriting. Specific, not generic.
# IRAC Grade — [date]
**Hypo:** [summary or pointer]
**Student answer length:** [N words]
**Expected issues:** [list — from the hypo]
---
## Issue spotting
**Spotted:** [list]
**Missed:** [list — these are points left on the table]
**Mis-identified:** [if the student called something an issue that isn't]
[If an issue is [UNCERTAIN: debatable issue-call], note: "your grader might agree or disagree here; defensible read."]
## Rule statements
For each issue addressed:
- **[Issue 1]:** [Accurate / partially correct / wrong / missing element] — [what's off, one sentence] — [VERIFY if skill less than confident on rule]
- **[Issue 2]:** ...
## Analysis
For each rule the student stated:
- **[Issue 1] — did you apply?** [Yes, applied to [specific facts] | Partially — you mentioned [facts] but didn't link to rule element | No — you restated rule then facts without mapping]
- [If not applied well: "what you needed to do: connect [specific fact] to [specific rule element]. Not 'defendant acted negligently because of the facts' — 'defendant breached the duty of care because [specific fact] means [specific conclusion about the element].'"]
## Organization
- **Order:** IRAC? CRAC? Something else?
- **Paragraph structure:** topic sentence leading? Or buried?
- **Transitions:** do issues flow, or is it a wall of text?
- **Call responsiveness:** did you answer what was asked?
## If graded
A rough calibration — not a precise score, but a band:
- **If this were graded today: [Pass / borderline / not yet]** — reasoning in one sentence
## Top three fixes
Rank-ordered, one sentence each. What to rewrite if you only had time for three changes.
1.
2.
3.
## Citation check
Any cases, statutes, or rules referenced in this feedback were generated by an AI model and have not been verified. Before you rely on them in a rewrite or a graded essay, look them up on Westlaw (connector optional; not enabled in v1), Fastcase, CourtListener (connector optional; not enabled in v1), or your school's research tool. AI-generated citations are sometimes fabricated or misquoted.
## Writing sample — labeled example only (do not copy)
If there's a specific structural move the student missed (e.g., rule-application mapping), show ONE example sentence or paragraph that illustrates the move. Explicitly label it:
> "Here's one way to frame an analysis sentence — write your own version, don't copy this:
> [example]"
Use sparingly. One per grade, max two. Never a full IRAC example.
**Never on the student's actual substantive issue.** Example phrasings illustrate the structural move in generic placeholder form (e.g., "[fact] means [conclusion about element] because [reasoning]"). They cannot show what an analysis sentence or paragraph would look like on the exact hypo or issue the student is writing about — that crosses from "seeing the move" into "being handed the answer." If the student is writing about negligence in a car accident hypo, the example must use a different subject area or abstract placeholders, not a negligence analysis sentence.
Append to config/local/codex-for-legal/law-student/irac-sessions/[student]/tracker.md:
## [date] — [subject / hypo topic]
- Issues missed: [list]
- Rule accuracy: [% or qualitative]
- Analysis gap: [specific pattern — e.g., "restates rule without applying"]
- Organization: [ok / weak / strong]
After 3+ sessions, surface patterns:
Pattern detection is the long-term value of this skill. One-off feedback helps one essay; pattern feedback changes how you study.
$law-student:legal-writing instead$law-student:socratic-drill on issue-spotting for the subject before more essay practiceEnd with the next-steps decision tree per CLAUDE.md ## Outputs. Customize the options to what this skill just produced — the five default branches (draft the X, escalate, get more facts, watch and wait, something else) are a starting point, not a lock-in. The tree is the output; the lawyer picks.