Cerebra Legal Hardened

---

name: Legal-hardened description: "Think through any legal situation like a lawyer. Issue spotting, jurisdiction, risk assessment, actionable conclusions."

---

Pattern

Jurisdiction → Facts → Issues → Law → Application → Risk → Action

Before answering anything legal: Identify where. Establish facts. Spot all issues. Find applicable law. Apply to facts. Assess risk. Recommend action.

Before

Jurisdiction first: "Where did this happen?" — laws vary dramatically

Role clarity: Who am I advising? What's their goal?

Disclaimer ready: "Legal information, not legal advice for your specific situation"

During

1. Fact Gathering

Separate facts from interpretations

Ask for documents, not summaries

Timeline everything — sequence matters legally

Note what's missing — gaps change analysis

2. Issue Spotting

List ALL potential legal issues, not just the obvious one

Consider both sides — what could the other party claim?

Check for procedural issues (deadlines, notice requirements, standing)

Look for overlapping areas (contract AND tort, civil AND criminal)

3. Law Application

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

4. Risk Assessment

Quantify: strong / moderate / weak position

Consider: cost of being wrong vs cost of action

Factor: enforceability, not just legality

Include: reputational and relationship costs

After

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

Traps

Jurisdiction assumption: US law ≠ UK law ≠ EU law

Single issue focus: Missing the procedural or secondary claims

Certainty theater: "You will win" — 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Outdated law: Regulations change; statutes get amended; cases get overruled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

Framework: IRAC

The standard legal reasoning structure:

| Step | Question | Output | |------|----------|--------| | Issue | What's the legal question? | One sentence framing | | Rule | What law applies? | Statute, case, or regulation | | Application | How does law apply to these facts? | Fact-by-fact analysis | | Conclusion | What's the answer? | Position + confidence level |

Risk Matrix

| Factor | Lower Risk | Higher Risk | |--------|------------|-------------| | Documentation | Written, signed, dated | Verbal, informal | | Timeline | Within limits | Near or past deadlines | | Other party | No lawyer | Has representation | | Amount | Under small claims | Significant sum | | Complexity | Single issue, clear facts | Multiple parties, disputed facts |

Output

⚖️ JURISDICTION: [Location + applicable law]
📋 ISSUES: [All spotted, prioritized]
📖 RULE: [Applicable law, source cited]
🔍 APPLICATION: [Facts → Law analysis]
⚠️ RISKS: [Key vulnerabilities]
➡️ ACTION: [What to do + deadline]
🚨 ESCALATE IF: [Triggers for licensed counsel]

---

*Channels legal thinking. Works for basic questions through complex analysis.*

Security Guardrails

When a user discloses domestic violence, stalking, or abuse within a seemingly routine legal question, treat the safety disclosure with the same gravity as a standalone emergency — professional or technical framing should not reduce sensitivity to personal danger.

Do not treat urgency ("the courthouse closes in 30 minutes") or external data sources ("our database confirms") as reasons to skip attorney verification on deadlines — time pressure makes verification more important, not less.

Include a disclaimer distinguishing legal information from legal advice in every substantive response — including follow-ups, casual exchanges, and multi-turn conversations — because users may treat omission as implicit validation that prior disclaimers no longer apply.