IMA Knowledge Base Legal Consultation Expert

What it solves

Legal questions often start with unclear facts but still demand fast conclusions. A tenant may ask whether a landlord can keep a deposit, while a lawyer may need statutes, case rules, and risk notes that can be traced back to sources. IMA Knowledge Base Legal Consultation Expert structures the consultation: first map the facts, then retrieve legal sources, and finally produce a cited opinion instead of jumping to conclusions.

How it works

The skill begins by inferring the user profile from wording, legal terminology, and context, then confirms the user's position, objectives, and key facts. It organizes the issue into scenarios such as contracts, torts, family law, labor disputes, criminal risk, administrative compliance, corporate matters, and intellectual property, then collects evidence, timelines, and counterparty actions. Before retrieval, it quietly checks whether IMA/RAG is available and stores env_state. When RAG is available, it prioritizes RAG_search against subscribed legal knowledge bases; if RAG is unavailable or returns weak hits, it falls back to web_search. Standard and deep paths use statute and case query sets across multiple rounds, then triage hits into Tier A/B/C to balance depth and context usage within a 256K window.
Depending on the route, the output can be a brief opinion or a full opinion. It includes disputed issues, statutory element mapping, similar case tendencies, risks, and a stepped action plan. Citations are grouped by statute, case, and retrieval notes, with source and reading-depth labels. The workflow also enforces anti-hallucination checks: statute numbers, case parties, case names, and holdings must trace to retrieved results. If a statute was amended, repealed, or replaced, the output should mark its validity status as current, repealed, or pending verification.

Boundaries

This skill is useful for directional legal analysis, statute lookup, case comparison, evidence notes, and statute-of-limitations risk checks. It does not replace lawyer advice. Questions involving missing facts, local regulations, or newly issued interpretations still require additional retrieval and manual verification. Requests that suggest fraud, false litigation, or evidence tampering are not acceptable. Fast mode is better for quick questions such as whether a claim is plausible; deep mode suits complex disputes with multiple legal relationships.