/memo

name: memo
description: >
  IRAC-scaffolded case analysis memo with research gaps flagged — the
  scaffold, not the analysis. Rule blocks are RESEARCH NEEDED, Application
  is STUDENT ANALYSIS prompts, Conclusion is blank. Use when a student needs
  to scaffold a case analysis memo, write up their analysis, or build an
  IRAC memo for a case.
argument-hint: "[optional: specific issue to focus]"

/memo

1. Load `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/legal-clinic/CLAUDE.md` → practice areas, jurisdiction. 2. Use the workflow below. Read intake summary / case notes. 3. Frame issues as questions. Scaffold IRAC for each — Rule blocks are RESEARCH NEEDED, Application is STUDENT ANALYSIS prompts, Conclusion is blank. 4. Strengths/weaknesses/open questions. Research gaps summary. 5. Output with prominent "the analysis is yours" label.

/legal-clinic:memo

---

Memo: Internal Case Analysis

Purpose

The case analysis memo is where the student's thinking lives. This skill provides the IRAC scaffolding and flags the research gaps — the student fills in the analysis.

**The analysis is the student's.** This skill structures; it doesn't conclude.

Load context

`~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/legal-clinic/CLAUDE.md` → practice areas, jurisdiction, supervision style. Intake summary and case notes for facts.

Pedagogy check

Read the supervisor guide for this practice area at `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/legal-clinic/guides/<practice-area>.md`. Check the `pedagogy_posture` setting:

• **`guide` (default):** Produce the IRAC structure and the research-gap list. Ask the student to draft each rule statement themselves from research, rather than giving them a framework. Give feedback on what they wrote. Offer to fill the framework rule for a section only when the student has tried once.
• **`assist`:** Produce the memo scaffold and fill what can be filled. Flag items for student review. The student edits and learns by reviewing. (Note: this memo skill always leaves the `[STUDENT ANALYSIS]` and `[STUDENT CONCLUSION]` blocks blank by design — `assist` means the skill produces the IRAC scaffold and framework rule statement; it does not produce the application or the conclusion.)
• **`teach`:** Don't produce the framework or the scaffold content. Ask the student to frame the issues, state the rules from their research, and do the application. Give feedback. Ask leading questions when they're stuck. Only show a model rule statement or a model application paragraph after two attempts, and only for the section they're stuck on. Track what they got right and wrong so the supervisor can see progress.

If no guide exists, use `guide`. If the guide exists but doesn't set a posture, use `guide`.

Whatever the posture, the output always includes: "**Pedagogy mode: [assist/guide/teach]** — set by your supervisor's guide. This means I [description of what the student did vs what the skill did]."

Workflow

Step 1: Frame the issues

From the intake summary and case notes: what are the legal questions this case presents?

State each as a question. Not "habitability" — "Can the client assert a habitability defense to the eviction based on the broken heater, and if so, does it offset the rent owed?"

If there are multiple issues, each gets its own IRAC block.

Step 2: Scaffold the IRAC

For each issue:

**Issue:** Stated as a question (from Step 1).

**Rule:** This is a research gap, not a conclusion. State what the student needs to find:

> `[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.]`

If the skill has high confidence in the general rule framework (e.g., "most states recognize an implied warranty of habitability"), state that as a framework starting point — **but explicitly mark it as unverified**:

> *Framework (unverified — confirm for [State]):* Most jurisdictions recognize > an implied warranty of habitability requiring landlords to maintain > conditions fit for human occupation. Breach may give rise to rent withholding, > repair-and-deduct, or rent abatement. > `[VERIFY: [State]'s specific elements and remedies]`

**Application:** This is where the student's analysis goes. Scaffold the structure, don't fill it:

> `[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?]`

List the facts that matter. Let the student do the applying.

**Conclusion:** Explicitly blank:

> `[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: Identify strengths, weaknesses, open questions

Separate section, after the IRAC blocks:

**Strengths (apparent from facts — student should test these):**

• [Fact that seems helpful and why]

**Weaknesses (apparent from facts — student should assess how serious):**

• [Fact that seems harmful and why]
• `[UNCERTAIN: whether [X] is actually a weakness — depends on [State] rule on [Y]]`

**Open questions (things the memo can't answer without more info):**

• Factual: [what we don't know from the client]
• Legal: [what needs research]
• Strategic: [judgment calls for the student/professor]

Output

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