case-brief

これはレビュー時に保存された抜粋です。完全で最新の内容は外部ソースを確認してください。

---
name: case-brief
description: >
  Brief a case in your preferred format. In drill-me mode, makes the student
  state the holding first. Use when the user says "brief [case]", "what's the
  holding in", "case brief", or pastes a case.
argument-hint: "[case name or citation, or paste the case]"
---

# /case-brief

1. Load `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/law-student/CLAUDE.md` → outline/brief preferences.
2. Apply the workflow below.
3. Brief in the student's format. If drill-me mode: ask the student to state the holding first.

---

## Purpose

A case brief is a tool for remembering what a case does. This skill makes one in your format — the format you'll actually use in your outline.

## Confidence discipline

Case briefs state holdings, rules, and reasoning. Getting them wrong turns your outline into a false map. The rule for this skill:

- **If you paste the case text:** I extract holding/rule/reasoning from what's in front of me. Confident.
- **If you only give a case name:** I brief from knowledge. Worth a lot less. I flag every line I'm not sure about with `[UNCERTAIN: specific reason]`, and I strongly recommend you confirm against the actual case before putting the brief in your outline. If I don't know the case well enough, I say so.
- **If the case has famous-but-contested interpretations:** I give the majority read and `[VERIFY: check your casebook and professor's framing]`.

A brief built on my guess and your good faith is worse than no brief. Better to err toward "I'm not sure — read it yourself" than to invent.

## Load context

`~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/law-student/CLAUDE.md` → outline/brief preferences (format, depth), learning style.

## The "don't brief it for me" rule (hard rule)

A brief you didn't write is a brief you won't remember. Every mode of this skill defaults to scaffolding the student's brief-writing, not to writing the brief.

**What this skill will do in every mode:**
- Ask the student what they already got from reading: the facts, the issue, the holding as they understand it.
- Provide the blank template in their preferred format (headings for Facts, Issue, Holding, Reasoning, Rule, Notes).
- Ask pointed follow-ups on whichever section is thin: "What were the key facts the court actually relied on?", "What's the narrow issue vs. the broader question?", "Why did the court reject the dissent's framing?"
- If the student pastes the case text, extract verbatim the court's own language for holding and reasoning — that is not writing-for-them; that is pointing at what the case says.
- Flag confused or wrong understandings: "You said the holding is X. The court's actual language is closer to Y. Which one is the rule you'll carry into your outline?"

**What this skill will not do, even if asked:**
- Write a full case brief from a case name alone. That is the exact thing the student is learning not to need.
- "Summarize this case for me" — refused. The brief is for remembering, which requires writing.

**Exception** (the only one): the student explicitly overrides — "I've read it three times, I'm stuck on phrasing the holding, just give me a starter sentence so I can rewrite it." Then write a minimal starter with `[VERIFY]` flags and prompt them to rewrite in their own words before it goes into an outline.

## Mode fork

**Drill-me mode:** Ask the student to state the holding before anything else:
> "You've read this case. What's the holding? One sentence."

If they can't state it, make them read it again. The brief is a memory aid, not a substitute for reading. Then proceed to the scaffold — ask them to state facts, issue, reasoning, and rule in turn. Push back on thin or wrong statements.

**Explain-to-me mode:** Same scaffolded workflow, softer tone. The skill walks the student through each section, offers structural prompts ("a good holding is one sentence, yes/no + the rule"), but still waits for the student to write the content. **Explain-to-me does not mean "write the