Passed 20 of 25 test cases with the skill, and 4 of 25 without it.
Without skill16%
With skill80%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
The Conclusion section explicitly states a confidence level.
The Conclusion section states an explicit level of confidence.
The Conclusion section includes an explicit confidence rating.
and 23 more in the full report
17 fixed3 passed either way4 still failing1 broke
Pass-rate lift
+64 pp
Tokens
+33%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-4%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/28/2026v120 of 25 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 17 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 17
Prompt
Can you evaluate a contract dispute using a structured legal reasoning framework? A client signed a software development agreement containing a non-compete clause that restricts them from working in the entire tech sector nationwide for three years. I'd like you to frame the legal issue clearly as a question, cite the legal rules and multi-part tests surrounding reasonable restraint of trade, apply those factors one by one to our scenario, and provide your legal conclusion at the end.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
The response uses the markdown section headers '## Issue', '## Rule', '## Application', and '## Conclusion'.
Missed
Passed
The Issue section frames the legal question starting with the word 'Whether'.
Missed
Passed
The Conclusion section states an explicit level of confidence.
Missed
Passed
case-02 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/28/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
SKILL.md89 lines2 files
IRAC Legal Analysis Method
Overview
IRAC is the standard method for structured legal reasoning: identify the legal Issue, state the applicable Rule, Apply the rule to the facts, and reach a Conclusion. It ensures analysis is systematic, complete, and logically rigorous.
Framework
IRON LAW: Issue First, Conclusion Last
NEVER state the conclusion before completing the analysis. IRAC works
BECAUSE it forces you to examine rules and apply them to facts before
reaching a conclusion. Starting with the conclusion and backfilling
the analysis is confirmation bias dressed in legal structure.
The Four Steps
I — Issue: Frame the specific legal question
State as a question: "Whether [specific legal question] given [key facts]"
Be precise — a vague issue leads to vague analysis
There may be multiple issues; address each separately
R — Rule: State the applicable law
Statute, regulation, case law, or legal principle
Include the specific elements/requirements of the rule
If the rule has a test (e.g., 4-factor test for fair use), state all factors
A — Application: Apply the rule to the specific facts
This is the core analytical work — match each element of the rule to the facts
Address each element/factor separately
Acknowledge ambiguity — where facts are unclear, note both possible interpretations
Use analogies to precedent cases where available
C — Conclusion: State the result
Answer the issue question directly
State the degree of confidence (clear, likely, arguable, unclear)
Use when the user wants to write a culture-and-arts news piece — exhibition coverage, performance reviews, artist interviews, cultural policy analysis, art market reporting, or cultural heritage reporting — from supplied material. Activates culture-beat-specific workflow on top of the general news-reporter workflow: cultural appropriation audit, indigenous knowledge protection, source credibility (institutional PR vs. independent critic), aesthetic judgment marking, and translation/cross-cultura