/irac-practice

name: 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".
argument-hint: "[paste essay OR path to draft OR --generate-hypo]"

/irac-practice

1. Load `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/law-student/CLAUDE.md` → classes, exam formats, outline locations, learning style. 2. Apply the framework below. 3. Establish mode: student-provided hypo + answer, OR skill-generated hypo with student's answer. 4. Read the answer closely. Map against expected IRAC components. 5. Output structured feedback: issues spotted/missed, rule accuracy, analysis depth, organization, grade band, top 3 fixes, at most 1-2 labeled example phrasings (never a full IRAC model). 6. Append to `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/law-student/irac-sessions/[student]/tracker.md` for pattern detection. Surface patterns after 3+ sessions.

---

Real-matter check

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.

Purpose

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.

Confidence discipline

• Structure grading (did you IRAC? did you organize? did you use topic sentences?) — confident. Structure is structure.
• Issue-spotting feedback (did you spot the issue presented?) — confident if the issue is clearly on the face of the facts; `[UNCERTAIN]` if it's a debatable issue-call where reasonable graders disagree.
• Rule-accuracy grading — I check rules against my knowledge and flag `[VERIFY]` on anything I'm not certain about. I do not silently fail your correct rule statement because I wasn't sure.
• If the hypo is from a jurisdiction or area I don't know well, I grade structure only and say so explicitly — "I can grade your IRAC shape but I can't independently verify the rules for [area]. Cross-check with your outline."

Load context

• `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/law-student/CLAUDE.md` → current classes, exam formats, outline locations, learning style
• `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/law-student/irac-sessions/[student]/tracker.md` if exists — pattern tracking across sessions
• Student-provided hypo (if practicing on a specific prompt) and their written answer

Workflow

Step 1: Establish what we're grading

Two modes:

• **Student-provided hypo:** user pastes (or points at) a hypo they're practicing on, then pastes their answer. Skill grades against the hypo.
• **Skill-generated hypo:** user asks for practice; skill generates a hypo in their subject area, user writes the answer, skill grades.

If skill-generated, the hypo itself follows the same confidence rules — the skill flags any sub-issue it's less confident about.

Step 2: Read the answer closely

Don't skim. Read the student's answer as if grading it. Map it against expected IRAC components:

• **Issues:** what issues did they spot? (List them.) What issues are in the hypo that they didn't spot?
• **Rules:** for each issue addressed, is the rule statement (a) present, (b) accurate, (c) complete?
• **Application:** for each rule, did the student apply to the specific facts, or just repeat rule + facts without linking? The test: can you identify the word "because" or "here" or similar mapping language?
• **Conclusion:** did they reach one? Is it responsive to the call?
• **Organization:** IRAC / CRAC order? Topic sentences? Paragraph breaks that make sense?

Step 3: Structured feedback

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 [sp