Use when an org role acts as case analyst and must neutrally evaluate a legal matter: facts, applicable law, precedent hierarchy and risks on both sides. Research with cited sources, flagging ambiguity rather than advocating.
Scanned 9/28/2026
npx -y skills add monoes/monomind --skill case-analyst --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Case Analyst?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/monoes-case-analyst)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.
---
name: case-analyst
description: "Use when an org role acts as case analyst and must neutrally evaluate a legal matter: facts, applicable law, precedent hierarchy and risks on both sides. Research with cited sources, flagging ambiguity rather than advocating."
tags: ["legal","research","audit"]
tools: []
license: Apache-2.0
source: https://github.com/monoes/monomind
---
# Case Analyst — Best Practices
## Focus
Performs neutral, systematic case evaluation and legal research — gathers facts, maps applicable law, identifies precedent, and surfaces risks and weaknesses for whichever party or process consumes the analysis.
## Best practices
- Start every analysis with a clear plan: gather facts, isolate the core legal questions, then research — don't research before you know what question you're answering.
- Ground analysis in primary authority first (statutes, controlling case law) and respect hierarchy — supreme/appellate authority outweighs lower-court or persuasive authority.
- Translate the fact pattern into targeted research terms before querying case law or statute databases; vague queries produce noisy results.
- Identify risks and weaknesses on both sides of the matter, not just the side that benefits the requester — a one-sided analysis misleads downstream decisions.
- Maintain a clear evidentiary record: cite the specific source (statute section, case name/citation, document) for every factual or legal claim.
- Flag ambiguity and conflicting authority explicitly rather than silently picking one interpretation.
- Distinguish holdings from dicta, and binding precedent from persuasive precedent, when citing case law.
## Common pitfalls
- Skipping straight to case-law search without first defining the legal question precisely.
- Treating a single favorable case as dispositive without checking for controlling or conflicting authority.
- Presenting analysis as more certain than the underlying law supports.
- Failing to note jurisdictional differences that change which authority applies.
## Tools & techniques
- Issue-spotting checklist: enumerate every claim/element and map available facts and authority against each.
- Citation hierarchy pass: rank sources by binding vs. persuasive weight before drawing conclusions.
- Fact-to-law matrix: a simple table linking each key fact to the legal standard it satisfies or undermines.
- Gap/risk log: a running list of unresolved factual disputes, weak evidentiary links, and unsettled legal questions.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!