Legal Explainer

Legal Explainer

What this does

Takes a legal position that already exists — a written opinion, a judgment, a clause, advice already given — and restates it in language a client can actually use to decide or act, without adding to or subtracting from what the source actually says. It is a translation exercise. The bottom line, the reasoning, the caveats, and the source's own level of confidence all have to survive the translation intact; only the register changes.

Before you start

The source material to translate. The actual opinion, judgment, clause, or advice — supplied by the user, not reconstructed from a general sense of what it probably says. This is the only blocking input; there is nothing to translate without it.

Not blocking, ask once and proceed on a reasonable default without it: the audience — an individual client, a business client, a board. This shapes register and how much background to supply, not the substance of what is said.

Method

1. Read the whole source once before restating anything. A caveat or qualification stated once, early in a document, routinely governs a conclusion stated later — translating section by section on a first pass loses exactly the nuance this skill exists to preserve.

2. State the bottom line first, in one or two plain sentences — what this actually means for the client, practically, before any of the reasoning.

3. Translate each material element of the source's reasoning into plain language, including the conditions and caveats it places on its own conclusion. Do not drop a caveat because it complicates an otherwise clean explanation — the caveat is often the part the client most needs.

4. Preserve the source's own level of confidence exactly. If the source says a position is "likely" or "arguable," the explanation says the same, in plain words — not "yes" or "you're covered." If the source is definitive, do not hedge it into false uncertainty either. Getting this wrong in either direction misrepresents the advice.

5. Do not add a legal conclusion, statute, or authority the source does not contain. This is a restatement, not a fresh analysis. If the client's actual question is not answered by the source, say that plainly rather than filling the gap with an inference of your own.

6. State what the client needs to do or decide, if the source implies an action, as its own distinct point — separate from the explanation of what the position means, so it cannot be missed inside the narrative.

7. Flag it, rather than silently resolve it, if the source itself is unclear, outdated, or internally inconsistent on the point the client is asking about. Do not pick one reading and present it as the only one.

Output

1. Bottom line. One or two plain sentences, stated first.

2. What this means. The reasoning and its conditions, in plain language, with the source's caveats and confidence level preserved exactly.

3. What you need to do or decide. Only if the source implies an action; stated separately from the explanation.

4. What this doesn't cover. If the client's actual question reaches beyond what the source addresses, say so plainly rather than extending the source's conclusion to cover it.

Do not

Do not add a legal conclusion, authority, or statute that is not present in the source material.

Do not upgrade or downgrade the source's stated level of confidence when translating it into plain language.

Do not drop a material caveat or qualification to make the explanation read more cleanly.

Do not silently resolve an ambiguity or internal inconsistency in the source. Flag it instead.

Do not answer a question the source does not actually address. Say plainly that it isn't covered.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: rohasnagpal
• Source: rohasnagpal/legal-ai-skills
• License: MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.