Legal Analysis
This skill is the reasoning engine: it turns a legal question, facts, and retrieved authority into a sound, inspectable analysis — and, when a document will follow, the proof skeleton that dingduff-legal-writing drafts from. It covers issue framing, rule synthesis, fact analysis, proof structure, and the use of authority. Keep this file in context as the spine; pull in a references/ file for the step you're on.
CRITICAL discipline (the whole skill rests on this)
- Retrieved authority only. Never state a rule, holding, quote, or citation from memory or a search snippet. Retrieve the source first (via
dingduff-legal-research, or sources the user supplied), then state it. Every rule and authority in the analysis must trace to a real, retrieved source. - Skeleton before prose. Produce the analytical skeleton — conclusion, rule, proof, application, each tagged with a real citation — before writing any polished prose. Fluent prose is where wrong analysis hides; the skeleton forces the reasoning into the open.
- Calibrate depth to the stakes. Most questions need one disciplined pass. For high-stakes matters — appellate briefs, dispositive motions, formal opinions, novel/first-impression issues — go exhaustive: each reference has a "Going further" section describing the deeper work (full issue inventories, every rule formulation, alternative proof structures, complete authority neutralization).
- Escalate, don't paper over. If a step exposes a gap — missing authority, an unsettled rule, an unsupported fact — stop and go back (to research, or to the earlier step) rather than writing confident prose over the hole.
- Predictive vs. persuasive. Predictive analysis (for a memo or client advice letter, "will we win") is objective and weighs both sides. Persuasive analysis (for a brief, motion, or demand letter) orders and frames for advantage but never misstates the law or facts.
The workflow
Run these in order; each consumes the previous step's output. Load the cited reference for method detail.
- Frame the issues — work from the user's question and the facts/record they provide; gather or confirm the factual record first, and if determinative facts are missing, ask the user. Then spot, select, narrow, and order the issues; fix the theory of the case and the controlling perspective. →
references/issue-framing.md - Get the authority — if the governing law isn't in hand, use
dingduff-legal-researchuntil it is, validity-checked. Return here whenever a later step surfaces a new question — research and analysis interleave. - Synthesize the rule — state the governing rule and structure it (elements / factors / standard); reconcile conflicts. →
references/rule-synthesis.md - Analyze the facts — identify the legally significant facts, classify them, map them to the rule's elements. →
references/fact-analysis.md - Structure the proof — organize each conclusion's proof conclusion-first (CRAC/CREAC), separate rule proof from application, calibrate depth, nest multiple conclusions. →
references/proof-structure.md - Deploy authority — analogize/distinguish cases and build statutory-interpretation arguments as you build the proof. →
references/applying-authority.md
Output: a labeled proof skeleton (ordered, nested, citation-anchored). When a document will follow — predictive or persuasive — the skeleton is the required hand-off to dingduff-legal-writing. Write the analysis up as the finished deliverable only when the analysis itself is what the user wants (no document to follow).
The proof unit (the spine, in brief)
Every legal conclusion is proved with one unit, in this order — Conclusion (stated first) → Rule → Explanation/rule proof → Application to the facts → Connection-conclusion. Never intermingle rule proof and application: finish proving what the rule is before applying it. Simple, uncontested points get a compressed unit; contested, dispositive points get a full one. Full method, depth calibration, and worked examples in references/proof-structure.md.
References map
Load the one you need:
references/issue-framing.md— spotting, selecting, narrowing, framing, and ordering issues; the four-question classification (fact / definition / evaluation / procedure); theory of the case; idea-generation techniques; going further (exhaustive inventory, competing framings, preservation, cross-issue interaction).references/rule-synthesis.md— the four kinds of rules; structuring a rule (elements / factors / standard); inductive synthesis across authorities; reconciling conflicts; weight-of-authority hierarchy; going further (every formulation, definitional architecture, mapped splits, trajectory).references/fact-analysis.md— identifying legally significant facts; classifying by significance, valence, and status; characterizing accurately; mapping facts to rule elements; fact-vs-conclusion discipline.references/proof-structure.md— the CRAC/CREAC proof unit; conclusion-first ordering; depth calibration (conclusory / substantiating / comprehensive; Ignore / Tell / CRAC / CREAC); nesting and umbrellas; predictive vs. persuasive ordering; worked example; going further (alternatives, fallbacks, counter-structures, coherence audit).references/applying-authority.md— using precedent (analogize/distinguish, holding vs. dicta, parentheticals, quotation); statutory argument (text, canons, intrinsic/extrinsic); handling adverse authority; the canons table; going further (every analogy and canon, full neutralization).
Related skills
Input: dingduff-legal-research (gathers and validity-checks the authority, flagging statutory currency for confirmation; interleaves with this skill so analysis guides research and research guides analysis). Next step: dingduff-legal-writing (drafts a document from the skeleton). QC: dingduff-legal-citation-format, dingduff-citation-check.
