IRAC Issue Analysis Chain

validated legal chain v1.0.0 cc-by-sa

Block ID: 01075897-02d9-4192-8c88-732ccd9603e2

Community-contributed block. PromptDNA makes no guarantee of output quality or fitness for purpose. This block operates in a regulated domain. Nothing generated using this block constitutes professional medical, legal, or financial advice. User assumes all responsibility for use.

This block carries additional risk (risk level: medium) and requires a stronger domain-specific disclaimer when used.

Template

Analyze the legal question in {scenario} using the IRAC structure, resolving each element fully before the next. (1) Issue: state the precise legal question(s) the facts raise, narrowing from the general area to the specific disputed element — a vague issue produces a vague analysis, so frame it as a yes/no or which-rule-applies question. (2) Rule: state the governing legal rule and its source (statute, regulation, or case-law standard), broken into its distinct elements or factors; where the rule varies by jurisdiction, flag that the applicable jurisdiction must be confirmed rather than assuming one. (3) Application: apply each element of the rule to the specific facts, arguing both how the facts satisfy it and how an opponent would argue they don't — one-sided application is advocacy, not analysis, and misses the weak points. (4) Address the strongest counterargument explicitly rather than the weakest. (5) Conclusion: state the most likely outcome on each issue and your confidence, noting which factual or legal uncertainties would change it. Close by stating that this is analytical reasoning, not legal advice, and that the specific jurisdiction's current law and a licensed attorney should be consulted before action.

Analyze the legal question in {scenario} using the IRAC structure, resolving each element fully before the next. (1) Issue: state the precise legal question(s) the facts raise, narrowing from the general area to the specific disputed element — a vague issue produces a vague analysis, so frame it as a yes/no or which-rule-applies question. (2) Rule: state the governing legal rule and its source (statute, regulation, or case-law standard), broken into its distinct elements or factors; where the rule varies by jurisdiction, flag that the applicable jurisdiction must be confirmed rather than assuming one. (3) Application: apply each element of the rule to the specific facts, arguing both how the facts satisfy it and how an opponent would argue they don't — one-sided application is advocacy, not analysis, and misses the weak points. (4) Address the strongest counterargument explicitly rather than the weakest. (5) Conclusion: state the most likely outcome on each issue and your confidence, noting which factual or legal uncertainties would change it. Close by stating that this is analytical reasoning, not legal advice, and that the specific jurisdiction's current law and a licensed attorney should be consulted before action.

Variables

Name	Type	Required	Trust level
scenario		yes

iraclegal-reasoningissue-spottingchain-of-thought

Ratings

0.0

Overall (0)

0.0

Accuracy

0.0

Consistency

0.0

Clarity

0.0

Efficiency

Benchmarks

Not yet self-validated against any benchmark. Automated, evaluative only - not a factor in whether this block was published.

Submitted by James P FounderMod via mcp · 2026-07-18