Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

legal-opinion-drafter(法律意见书起草人)

legal-opinion-drafter 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

legal-opinion-drafter 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为只读;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 69,749。

总安装 216周安装 9GitHub Stars 11下载 72核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:legal-opinion-drafter(法律意见书起草人)
来源仓库:https://github.com/swarochish/indian-law-plugin
仓库路径:skills/legal-opinion-drafter
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/swarochish/indian-law-plugin --skill legal-opinion-drafter
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/swarochish/indian-law-plugin --skill legal-opinion-drafter

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

legal-opinion-drafter 用于法律意见书相关的信息检索与筛选,适合法律文书起草场景。支持基于关键词、案例类型或法规条文定位候选资料,适用于法律意见生成。通过 npx skills add 命令从 GitHub 仓库安装,需确认权限与维护状态。建议在使用前核实是否涉及联网或文件读写,避免意外行为。

可结合原始 README 了解具体调用方式与适用限制。

来源仓库内路径:skills/legal-opinion-drafter

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/swarochish/indian-law-plugin --skill legal-opi…;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它标注为只读,先用只读任务试一次,确认行为符合预期再扩大使用范围。

常见问题

6 条

legal-opinion-drafter 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/swarochish/indian-law-plugin --skill legal-opinion-draft…。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

legal-opinion-drafter 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

legal-opinion-drafter 需要什么权限?

权限级别是只读。该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

legal-opinion-drafter 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

legal-opinion-drafter 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 216 次,近一周安装 9 次,下载 72 次,GitHub 11 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

legal-opinion-drafter 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。
  • 标注为只读权限,试用阶段不容易误改本地文件。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 只想先试试效果、不希望它改动本地文件的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
legal-opinion-drafter

法律意见书起草人 · 本页

21611只读未明确通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

Legal Opinion Drafter

This skill provides structured templates and guidelines for drafting professional legal opinions following Indian legal practice standards.

Purpose

Draft well-structured legal opinions by:

  1. Following standard opinion format (Issue-Rule-Analysis-Conclusion)
  2. Ensuring proper legal citations (statutes + case law)
  3. Including mandatory disclaimers
  4. Maintaining professional tone and precision
  5. Organizing complex legal analysis logically

When to Use This Skill

Use this skill when:

  • Drafting formal legal opinions for clients
  • Creating research memoranda on legal issues
  • Preparing advisory documents on Indian law
  • Responding to legal queries requiring detailed analysis
  • Documenting legal positions with supporting authorities

Standard Opinion Structure

Format Template

# LEGAL OPINION

**Matter**: [Brief description]
**Date**: [Date of opinion]
**Prepared By**: Claude Code - Indian Law Knowledge System
**Reference**: [File/matter reference if applicable]

---

## 1. QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

[Concise statement of legal issue(s) to be analyzed]

Example:
1. Whether a suit for specific performance filed on November 28, 2024 for a sale agreement dated January 1, 2020 with performance date June 1, 2020 is within the limitation period prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963?

---

## 2. BRIEF ANSWER

[1-3 sentence summary conclusion]

Example:
Yes, the suit is within limitation. Under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation period is three years from the date fixed for performance. With the COVID-19 Supreme Court extension of 531 days, the final deadline is November 28, 2024.

---

## 3. FACTS

[Relevant factual background - only material facts]

Guidelines:
- Chronological presentation
- Dates in clear format (January 1, 2020)
- Only legally relevant facts
- Numbered for easy reference

Example:
1. On January 1, 2020, the parties entered into a sale agreement for immovable property located at [address].
2. The agreement fixed June 1, 2020 as the date for performance.
3. The seller refused to execute the sale deed on June 15, 2020.
4. Prior to filing this suit, no litigation was pending between the parties.

---

## 4. APPLICABLE LAW

### 4.1 Statutory Provisions

[Cite relevant statutes with full citation on first mention]

Example:
**Limitation Act, 1963**
- Section 3: Mandatory bar on suits instituted after prescribed period
- Article 54: "For the specific performance of a contract" - Three years from date fixed for performance or, if no such date is fixed, from the date on which the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused

**Specific Relief Act, 1963** (as amended 2018)
- Section 10: Specific performance of contracts
- Section 20: Discretion as to decreeing specific performance (mandatory post-2018 Amendment)

### 4.2 Case Law

[Cite binding precedents with proper AIR/SCC citations]

Example:
**Supreme Court Precedents**:

1. **Cognizance for Extension of Limitation Period – COVID-19 v. Union of India**, Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020
   - Held: Extension of limitation period by 531 days from March 15, 2020 to October 2, 2021
   - Applicability: All proceedings including suits, appeals, applications

2. **Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer**, AIR 2013 SC 3109
   - Held: Limitation is mandatory; court has no discretion to extend (except Section 5 for appeals/applications)

---

## 5. ANALYSIS

[Detailed legal reasoning applying law to facts]

Structure:
- Start with statutory framework
- Apply case law principles
- Address counter-arguments
- Distinguish unfavorable precedents if any

Example:
### 5.1 Limitation Period Calculation

Under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation period for a suit for specific performance is three years. The critical question is determining when this period commences.

#### Starting Point
The Schedule to the Limitation Act specifies that the period begins to run "from the date fixed for performance or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused."

In the present case, the agreement fixed June 1, 2020 as the performance date. However, actual refusal occurred on June 15, 2020. Under Article 54, limitation commences from the refusal to perform (June 15, 2020), not the fixed date, when refusal occurs after the fixed date.

#### Basic Limitation Calculation
- Starting Point: June 15, 2020
- Period: 3 years
- Basic Expiry: June 15, 2023

#### COVID-19 Extension
The Supreme Court in *Cognizance for Extension* extended limitation by 531 days for the period March 15, 2020 to October 2, 2021. Since the limitation period in this case expired on June 15, 2023 (after the COVID extension ended), but was running during the extension period, the full 531-day extension applies.

- Basic Expiry: June 15, 2023
- COVID Extension: + 531 days
- Final Deadline: November 28, 2024

#### Conclusion on Limitation
The suit filed on November 28, 2024 is **on the last day** of the extended limitation period and is therefore within time under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

### 5.2 [Additional analysis sections as needed]

---

## 6. CONCLUSION

[Definitive conclusion with legal basis]

Example:
Based on the foregoing analysis, I conclude that:

1. **Limitation**: The suit for specific performance is within the limitation period prescribed under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as extended by the Supreme Court COVID-19 order. The final deadline is November 28, 2024.

2. **Maintainability**: Subject to compliance with other procedural requirements, the suit is maintainable.

3. **Recommendation**: Given that the suit is being filed on the final day of limitation, immediate filing is critical to avoid dismissal under Section 3 of the Limitation Act.

---

## 7. QUALIFICATIONS & ASSUMPTIONS

[State any assumptions made or qualifications to opinion]

Example:
This opinion is based on the following assumptions:
1. All facts provided are accurate and complete
2. No prior litigation between parties on same subject matter
3. No fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake alleged (which could alter limitation under Section 17)
4. Plaintiff has clean hands and is ready and willing to perform

---

## 8. REFERENCES

[List all authorities cited]

**Statutes**:
- Limitation Act, 1963
- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (as amended 2018)

**Cases**:
- Cognizance for Extension of Limitation Period – COVID-19 v. Union of India, Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020
- Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2013 SC 3109

---

## LEGAL DISCLAIMER

**This opinion provides legal information and analysis based on Indian law as understood by the Claude Code - Indian Law Knowledge System. It does NOT constitute legal advice, and should not be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with a qualified advocate enrolled with a Bar Council.**

**Key Limitations**:
1. This is an AI-generated analysis based on available legal information
2. Legal interpretations may vary; courts have final authority
3. Facts may change requiring different legal analysis
4. Recent developments may not be reflected
5. Jurisdiction-specific variations may apply

**Recommendations**:
- Consult a qualified advocate before taking any legal action
- Verify all statutory citations and case law independently
- Confirm current applicability of legal provisions
- Seek professional opinion for time-critical matters

**Liability Disclaimer**: No responsibility is assumed for actions taken based on this opinion. Users are solely responsible for verifying accuracy and seeking professional legal counsel.

---

**Opinion Version**: 1.0
**Generated**: [Date and Time]
**System**: Claude Code - Indian Law Knowledge Ecosystem v2.0

Opinion Components Explained

1. Question Presented

  • Purpose: Frame precise legal issue
  • Format: Single sentence question
  • Style: Neutral, not leading

Good Example:

Whether Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (as amended 2018) mandates specific performance or court retains discretion?

Poor Example:

Tell me about specific performance

2. Brief Answer

  • Length: 1-3 sentences max
  • Content: Direct answer + key legal basis
  • Style: Conclusive, not tentative

3. Facts

  • Relevance: Only material facts affecting legal analysis
  • Chronology: Present in time order
  • Neutrality: Objective presentation, no advocacy

4. Applicable Law

  • Hierarchy: Constitution → Statutes → Case Law
  • Citations: Full citation on first mention (use legal-citation-validator skill)
  • Relevance: Only directly applicable provisions

5. Analysis

  • Structure: Issue-by-issue or element-by-element
  • Depth: Detailed reasoning, not conclusions
  • Counter-Arguments: Address opposing views
  • Synthesis: Integrate statutes + case law

6. Conclusion

  • Definitiveness: Clear answer to question presented
  • Basis: Summarize key legal support
  • Recommendations: Practical next steps if appropriate

7. Qualifications

  • Assumptions: State what opinion assumes to be true
  • Limitations: Note scope of analysis
  • Caveats: Identify areas of uncertainty

8. References

  • Completeness: List ALL authorities cited
  • Format: Consistent citation style
  • Organization: By source type (statutes, cases, secondary)

9. Disclaimer

  • Mandatory: ALWAYS include
  • Comprehensive: Cover all limitation scenarios
  • Professional: Emphasize need for qualified counsel

Writing Style Guidelines

Tone

  • Professional: Formal legal language
  • Objective: Neutral analysis, not advocacy
  • Precise: Exact legal terminology
  • Clear: Avoid unnecessary jargon

Language Rules

  • Use "shall" for mandatory provisions
  • Use "may" for discretionary provisions
  • Avoid contractions (don't → do not)
  • Use present tense for legal principles
  • Use past tense for facts
  • Use "I conclude" not "I think" or "I believe"

Formatting

  • Headings: Numbered, hierarchical
  • Lists: Numbered for steps, bullet for items
  • Emphasis: Bold for case names, italics for emphasis
  • Citations: Inline with proper punctuation

Integration

With Skills

  • legal-citation-validator: Validate all citations before finalizing
  • legal-research-assistant: Research authorities cited
  • limitation-calculator: For time-sensitive opinions

With Agents

  • All specialized agents use this format for formal outputs
  • Master orchestrator invokes for comprehensive responses

With Commands

  • /legal-opinion <question> triggers this skill

Templates by Opinion Type

Refer to @references/opinion-templates.md for:

  • Contractual interpretation opinion
  • Constitutional law opinion
  • Litigation viability opinion
  • Compliance opinion
  • Transactional opinion

Refer to @assets/opinion-templates/ for pre-formatted templates

Quality Checklist

Before finalizing opinion:

  • Question clearly presented
  • Brief answer matches detailed conclusion
  • All facts material and verified
  • Statutes cited with full title + year (first mention)
  • Cases cited with proper AIR/SCC format
  • Analysis addresses question directly
  • Counter-arguments considered
  • Conclusion is definitive
  • Assumptions stated explicitly
  • References complete
  • LEGAL DISCLAIMER included
  • No spelling/grammatical errors
  • Citations validated (use legal-citation-validator)

Tools Required

This skill uses:

  • Read: Access templates and references
  • Write: Draft opinion document
  • legal-citation-validator: Validate citations

Disclaimer

This skill provides opinion drafting guidance following Indian legal practice standards. It does not constitute legal advice. All opinions generated must:

  • Include mandatory legal disclaimer
  • Be reviewed by qualified advocates
  • Not be relied upon without professional verification
  • State limitations explicitly

REMEMBER: Every legal opinion MUST include clear disclaimer that it is NOT legal advice and professional consultation is required.


Skill Version: 1.0.0 Last Updated: 2025-12-05 Part of: Indian Law Knowledge Ecosystem Dependencies: legal-citation-validator Critical Requirement: MANDATORY LEGAL DISCLAIMER

平台分布

Codex

35.63%
按下载量换算26

Claude

31.96%
按下载量换算23

Cursor

20.37%
按下载量换算15

Gemini CLI

9.63%
按下载量换算7

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills