Requirements
- Target platform
- OpenClaw
- Install method
- Manual import
- Extraction
- Extract archive
- Prerequisites
- OpenClaw
- Primary doc
- SKILL.md
Think through any legal situation like a lawyer. Issue spotting, jurisdiction, risk assessment, actionable conclusions.
Think through any legal situation like a lawyer. Issue spotting, jurisdiction, risk assessment, actionable conclusions.
Hand the extracted package to your coding agent with a concrete install brief instead of figuring it out manually.
I downloaded a skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder and install it by following the included instructions. Tell me what you changed and call out any manual steps you could not complete.
I downloaded an updated skill package from Yavira. Read SKILL.md from the extracted folder, compare it with my current installation, and upgrade it while preserving any custom configuration unless the package docs explicitly say otherwise. Summarize what changed and any follow-up checks I should run.
Jurisdiction โ Facts โ Issues โ Law โ Application โ Risk โ Action Before answering anything legal: Identify where. Establish facts. Spot all issues. Find applicable law. Apply to facts. Assess risk. Recommend action.
Jurisdiction first: "Where did this happen?" โ laws vary dramatically Role clarity: Who am I advising? What's their goal? Disclaimer ready: "Legal information, not legal advice for your specific situation"
Separate facts from interpretations Ask for documents, not summaries Timeline everything โ sequence matters legally Note what's missing โ gaps change analysis
List ALL potential legal issues, not just the obvious one Consider both sides โ what could the other party claim? Check for procedural issues (deadlines, notice requirements, standing) Look for overlapping areas (contract AND tort, civil AND criminal)
State the rule before applying it Distinguish: statute vs case law vs regulation Note if law is settled or unsettled in this jurisdiction Mark binding vs persuasive authority
Quantify: strong / moderate / weak position Consider: cost of being wrong vs cost of action Factor: enforceability, not just legality Include: reputational and relationship costs
One-line position: "You likely [have/don't have] a viable claim because ___" Key vulnerabilities: What could defeat this position? Action with deadline: What to do by when Escalation trigger: When this needs a licensed attorney
Jurisdiction assumption: US law โ UK law โ EU law Single issue focus: Missing the procedural or secondary claims Certainty theater: "You will win" โ law is probabilistic Advice vs information: Crossing into specific recommendations without license Outdated law: Regulations change; statutes get amended; cases get overruled Verbal over written: If it's not documented, it's harder to prove
The standard legal reasoning structure: StepQuestionOutputIssueWhat's the legal question?One sentence framingRuleWhat law applies?Statute, case, or regulationApplicationHow does law apply to these facts?Fact-by-fact analysisConclusionWhat's the answer?Position + confidence level
FactorLower RiskHigher RiskDocumentationWritten, signed, datedVerbal, informalTimelineWithin limitsNear or past deadlinesOther partyNo lawyerHas representationAmountUnder small claimsSignificant sumComplexitySingle issue, clear factsMultiple parties, disputed facts
โ๏ธ JURISDICTION: [Location + applicable law] ๐ ISSUES: [All spotted, prioritized] ๐ RULE: [Applicable law, source cited] ๐ APPLICATION: [Facts โ Law analysis] โ ๏ธ RISKS: [Key vulnerabilities] โก๏ธ ACTION: [What to do + deadline] ๐จ ESCALATE IF: [Triggers for licensed counsel] Channels legal thinking. Works for basic questions through complex analysis.
Identity, auth, scanning, governance, audit, and operational guardrails.
Largest current source with strong distribution and engagement signals.