Legal syllogism en

Skill matematicsolutions/awesome-matematic-skills-en/verification-foundation/skills/legal-syllogism-en

English hub of method-neutral legal AI skills (verification core, content quality, EU law) - bundle model. Polish-jurisdiction skills live in awesome-matematic-skills-pl.

Install

npx -y skills add matematicsolutions/awesome-matematic-skills-en --skill legal-syllogism-en

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

2 things to look at

no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Builds the explicit legal syllogism for an issue - lays out the major premise (the rule and its interpretation), the minor premise (the material facts), the application (subsuming facts under each element of the rule), and the conclusion, then flags the weak links: unstated assumptions, contested facts, debatable interpretation. Forces every step to be said out loud and checkable instead of jumping from facts to a holding. Maps to civil-law subsumption and common-law IRAC/CREAC. Jurisdiction-neutral method. Pairs with adversarial-legal-review-en (attack the syllogism) and reviewer-en. Use when: "build the syllogism", "lay out the legal reasoning", "apply the rule to the facts", "IRAC this", "where is the gap in the argument", "major and minor premise", "structure the analysis" - when drafting an opinion, brief, or memo.

The file declares its own license as Apache-2.0. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.

SKILL.md

4.4 KB, 717 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Legal syllogism - make the reasoning explicit

Philosophy

A flawed opinion rarely fails at the conclusion - it fails at the premise nobody stated. Legal reasoning is a syllogism: the rule (major premise), the facts (minor premise), the application, and the conclusion. When a step is left unsaid - "because it's obvious" - that is where the gap hides, and that is where the other side, or the court, will strike. This skill forces each step to be stated and marks what is settled and what is contested.

It structures the reasoning; it does not decide the case. Judgement and the decision stay with the lawyer.

Method (subsumption / IRAC)

Major premise (rule + interpretation) - identify the governing rule, then its reading: how each element of the rule is construed (text, structure, purpose). Note where authority or commentary splits.
Minor premise (material facts) - list the facts that matter to the rule's elements. Separate undisputed facts from contested ones, and facts from characterisations.
Application (subsumption) - for each element of the rule, show which fact satisfies it (or does not). This is the real work: matching fact to element.
Conclusion - the legal consequence that follows from the application.
Weak-link test - mark which elements are contested in interpretation, which facts are contested on the evidence, and which assumptions were made silently. This is the map for adversarial-legal-review-en.

Output format

ISSUE: <the legal question>

MAJOR PREMISE (rule): <provision/authority> - "<elements>"
  Interpretation: <how the elements are read; any split in authority>

MINOR PREMISE (material facts):
  - undisputed: <...>
  - contested (evidence): <...>

APPLICATION (element -> fact):
  - <element 1> : satisfied by <fact> | NOT satisfied | contested
  - <element 2> : ...

CONCLUSION: <legal consequence>

WEAK LINKS (for adversarial-legal-review-en):
  - interpretation: <which element is contested and why>
  - facts: <what needs proof>
  - silent assumptions: <...>

Limits

The syllogism orders reasoning - it does not perform interpretation or fact-finding. Whether the rule, its reading, and the facts are right is for the lawyer.
It does not weigh competing arguments (that is adversarial-legal-review-en) - it arranges them so attack and verification have something to work on.
Subsumption assumes a rule with elements. For open-textured standards and the balancing of principles, a pure syllogism is not enough - mark it as balancing, not subsumption.

Attribution

The legal syllogism (subsumption; IRAC/CREAC) is a classical method of legal reasoning. The idea of an explicit syllogism scaffold for AI is inspired in part by Fuzi.Mingcha (irlab-sdu) - without using its code or models. Rules, format, and framing are MateMatic's own. MateMatic interpretation, not the position of any bar or regulator.

What ships with it

Read from the repository

Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.