Atlas / Skills / revfactory / Legal Research

Legal ResearchSAFE

skills/revfactory/legal-research
Verdict
SAFE
Grade
B
Trust score
89 /100
Version
—
Hosts
—
License
Apache-2.0
Stars
1,297
01

Overview

An agent skill published by revfactory.

Read from source at commit 459e1bb8f76eOBSERVED · 2026-10-12
02

What it tells the agent

The instruction file, verbatim from the audited commit — this is the text the model reads, and the surface the audit's instruction layer examines. Quoted here so you can judge it without cloning anything.

```markdown
---
name: legal-research
description: "Full legal research pipeline. An agent team collaborates to perform case search → legal doctrine analysis → opinion drafting → strategy formulation in one pass. Use this skill for all legal research tasks including 'legal research', 'case search', 'legal doctrine analysis', 'legal opinion', 'litigation strategy', 'legal issue analysis', 'legal review', 'dispute response strategy', 'legal risk analysis', 'legal advisory materials', etc. However, actual legal advice (attorney opinion letters), litigation/arbitration representation, direct integration with legal databases (comprehensive legal information systems), and notarization of legal documents are outside the scope of this skill."
---

# Legal Research — Legal Research Pipeline

Systematically performs case search, legal doctrine analysis, opinion drafting, and strategy formulation for legal issues.

## Execution Modes

**Agent Team** — 4 agents communicate directly via SendMessage and perform cross-validation.

## Agent Composition

| Agent | File | Role | Type |
|---------|------|------|------|
| case-searcher | `.claude/agents/case-searcher.md` | Case search, trend analysis | general-purpose |
| legal-analyst | `.claude/agents/legal-analyst.md` | Issue identification, legal doctrine analysis | general-purpose |
| opinion-writer | `.claude/agents/opinion-writer.md` | Legal opinion drafting | general-purpose |
| strategy-advisor | `.claude/agents/strategy-advisor.md` | Strategy formulation, risk assessment | general-purpose |

## Workflow

### Phase 1: Preparation (Orchestrator performs directly)

1. Extract from user input:
    - **Legal Issue**: Specific legal question or dispute situation
    - **Facts**: Facts of the relevant case
    - **Relevant Legal Domain**: Civil, criminal, administrative, labor, intellectual property, etc.
    - **Client Position**: Plaintiff / defendant / victim / other
    - **Existing Materials** (optional): Contracts, evidence, prior opinions, etc.
2. Create `_workspace/` directory at the project root
3. Organize input and save to `_workspace/00_input.md`
4. **Determine execution mode** based on the scope of the request

### Phase 2: Team Assembly and Execution

| Order | Task | Assigned To | Dependencies | Output |
|------|------|------|------|--------|
| 1 | Case search | case-searcher | None | `_workspace/01_case_search.md` |
| 2 | Legal doctrine analysis | legal-analyst | Task 1 | `_workspace/02_legal_analysis.md` |
| 3 | Opinion drafting | opinion-writer | Tasks 1, 2 | `_workspace/03_legal_opinion.md` |
| 4 | Strategy formulation | strategy-advisor | Tasks 2, 3 | `_workspace/04_legal_strategy.md` |

**Inter-team Communication Flow:**
- case-searcher completes → delivers key cases and issue-by-issue classification to legal-analyst
- legal-analyst completes → delivers issue structure map and legal doctrine analysis to opinion-writer; delivers win probability assessment to strategy-advisor
- opinion-writer completes → delivers opinion conclusions and certainty level to strategy-advisor
- strategy-advisor cross-validates logical consistency across all outputs when drafting the final report

### Phase 3: Integration and Final Deliverables

1. Review all files in `_workspace/`
2. Verify logical consistency across case search → legal doctrine → opinion → strategy
3. Report final summary to the user:
    - Case Search Report — `01_case_search.md`
    - Legal Doctrine Analysis Report — `02_legal_analysis.md`
    - Legal Opinion — `03_legal_opinion.md`
    - Strategy Formulation Report — `04_legal_strategy.md`

## Modes by Task Scope

| User Request Pattern | Execution Mode | Agents Deployed |
|----------------|----------|-------------|
| "Full legal research", "Comprehensive legal issue analysis" | **Full Pipeline** | All 4 agents |
| "Just find relevant cases" | **Case Search Mode** | case-searcher only |
| "Analyze the legal doctrine for this issue" | **Legal Doctrine Analysis Mode** | case-searcher + legal-analyst |
| "Just draft the legal opinion" (analysis already available) | **Opinion Mode** | opinion-writer |
| "Just formulate the litigation strategy" (opinion already available) | **Strategy Mode** | strategy-advisor |

## Data Transfer Protocol

| Strategy | Method | Purpose |
|------|------|------|
| File-based | `_workspace/` directory | Storing and sharing major deliverables |
| Message-based | SendMessage | Real-time delivery of key information, revision requests |

File naming convention: `{sequence}_{agent}_{deliverable}.{extension}`

## Error Handling

| Error Type | Strategy |
|----------|------|
| Web search failure | Case searcher proceeds with general legal knowledge, notes "case DB not queried" |
| Insufficient facts | Ask follow-up questions before proceeding; perform general analysis with minimal information |
| Agent failure | Retry once → if still failing, proceed without that deliverable; note omission in final report |
| Legal judgment uncertainty | Present multiple interpretations, note "professional legal counsel recommended" |
| Logical inconsistency between outputs | strategy-advisor identifies inconsistency and requests re-review |

## Test Scenarios

### Normal Flow
**Prompt**: "When a consumer suffers damages due to delayed delivery from an online shopping mall, please conduct legal research on the seller's liability for damages."
**Expected Results**:
- Case search: 5+ cases related to e-commerce delivery delay damages
- Legal doctrine analysis: Analysis of issues under breach of contract, Consumer Protection Act, and E-Commerce Act
- Opinion: IRAC structure, certainty level noted, disclaimer included
- Strategy: Comparison of litigation / mediation / negotiation options, cost-benefit analysis

### Partial Flow
**Prompt**: "Find cases related to dismissal under the Labor Standards Act."
**Expected Results**:
- Switches to Case Search Mode (case-searcher only)
- List of Supreme Court cases on unfair dismissal, classified b
03

Trust audit

SAFEgrade B · trust 89/100 Nothing in the source contradicts what it says it does. Grade A is reserved for packages that have also passed the behavioural sandbox.

LayerWhat it checksResult
L0Provenance & inventoryPASS
L1Static analysis of the codeNA
L2Instruction surface (what it tells the agent)PASS
L3Class-specific surfacePASS
L4Behavioural (sandbox)SKIPPED

What the source does

Filesystem
none-observed
Network
none-observed
Shell
none-observed
Dependencies
pinned
Secrets in source
none-found

Findings (1)

LOWInventory / provenance · skill.no_frontmatter · CWE-1104
SKILL.md:1
Why it matters. SKILL.md lacks name/description frontmatter

Gates applied: no_behavioural_pass.

Audited 2026-10-12 · audit v0.4.1 · source sha 459e1bb8f76efull audit observations/trust-audit/skill/revfactory__legal-research.json · Report an issue / request a re-scan
04

Audit history

Every audit this skill has had.

DateSourceVerdictGradeScoreChange
2026-10-12459e1bb8f76eSAFEB89first audit
05

Questions

Is Legal Research safe to install?

The audit found nothing in the source that contradicts what it says it does, and graded it B (89/100). Grade A is held back for packages that have also passed a sandboxed behavioural run, which is why a clean skill reads B.

What can Legal Research access on my machine?

The audit observed no filesystem, network or shell use at all in its source.

How current is this page?

The grade is for one exact copy of the source (459e1bb8f76e), read on 2026-10-12. The repository is watched, and a new audit runs when it changes — this is the first audit.

Advertisement