/cold-call-prep
- Load
~/.codebuddy/plugins/config/legal-workflows/law-student/practice-profile.md → class list, professors, learning style.
- Apply the workflow below.
- Identify reading (case name + citation, professor, class, syllabus context).
- Predict 6-10 likely questions across categories (Facts / Holding / Reasoning / Application / Policy), weighted to professor's known tendencies.
- Drill using socratic pattern — ask, wait, push back, narrow when stuck. Don't give answers.
- Post-drill summary: strong/shaky/missed; what to re-check before class.
Real-matter check
If the question the student is asking sounds like it's about a REAL situation — their lease, their parking ticket, their family's business, their friend's arrest, a real dollar amount, a real deadline, a real party name — stop.
"This sounds like a real situation, not a hypothetical. I can't give you legal advice, and you can't give it either — you're not a lawyer yet. If this is real, [the person] needs an actual lawyer: legal aid, your school's clinic, a lawyer referral service (your jurisdiction's bar association, law society, or legal aid body), or (if there's money) a private attorney. I'm happy to help you understand the general legal concepts involved, but that's study, not advice."
Watch for: real names, real addresses, real dates, specific dollar amounts, "my landlord/boss/parent/friend," "I got a ticket/letter/notice," deadlines measured in days. Any one of these is a trigger.
Purpose
Cold-calling lives or dies on preparation. The professor has read the case dozens of times and knows the questions; the student has read it once. This skill narrows the gap — predicts the likely question patterns for the case, drills the student on them, and surfaces what they haven't locked in.
Not a replacement for reading the case. A test that you actually did.
Confidence discipline
- When the student provides case text or casebook excerpts: I predict questions based on the actual text. Confident.
- When the student provides only a case name: I predict based on what I know about the case. Flag
[UNCERTAIN] on any question that depends on case details I'm not sure of. Strongly recommend the student pastes the case or casebook treatment first.
- If I don't know the case well: say so. "I don't have a reliable read on this case — paste the text or casebook treatment and I can work from that. Otherwise my questions are educated guesses."
Load context
~/.codebuddy/plugins/config/legal-workflows/law-student/practice-profile.md → current classes, professors, learning style- User-provided: case name / case text / casebook pages / reading list
Workflow
Step 1: Identify the reading + professor
- Case name and citation
- Professor (from ~/.codebuddy/plugins/config/legal-workflows/law-student/practice-profile.md class list — tone and focus vary by professor)
- Class / subject area
- Where this case falls in the syllabus (for context — is this the first case on the topic, a narrowing case, a counterexample?)
Step 2: Predict the questions
Professors cold-call in recurring patterns. Predict across these categories:
Facts-level (warm-up):
- Who are the parties? What happened? Procedural posture?
- What did the trial court do? The appellate court below?
- Why is this in the casebook? What subject is it illustrating?
Holding / rule:
- What's the holding? One sentence.
- What's the rule that comes out of this case — the portable takeaway?
- How would you phrase the rule if it were in your outline?
Reasoning:
- Why did the court decide this way?
- What arguments did the court reject?
- Was there a dissent? What did it argue?
Application / hypos:
- What if [fact X] were different — same outcome?
- How does this case compare to [prior case in the syllabus]?
- What's the limiting principle? Where does this rule stop?
Policy / theory:
- What's the policy the court is protecting?
- Does this rule make sense? Alternative approaches?
Professor-specific flavor (from ~/.codebuddy/plugins/config/legal-workflows/law-student/practice-profile.md notes):
- If the professor is known for hypo-heavy calls, weight Application/Hypo questions
- If policy-heavy, weight Policy/Theory
- If fact-heavy socratic (Socratic 101 Paper Chase style), weight Facts + Holding
Pick 6-10 questions across these categories. Rank by likelihood of being asked first (Facts usually go first, then Holding, then the harder categories).
Step 3: Drill
Use the socratic-drill pattern:
- Ask Question 1. Wait for answer.
- If right + well-reasoned: acknowledge, move to Question 2.
- If right but sloppy: don't let it slide. "You got there, but explain — why does the court's reasoning support that?"
- If wrong: don't give the answer. Ask a narrowing question. "What facts does the court rely on?" Walk them to it.
- If stuck: narrow further. "Before we go to the holding — what's the procedural posture?"
- If genuinely lost: tell them to re-read the case. "This is a re-read, not a guess-your-way-through. Come back when you've read it again."
Step 4: Post-drill summary
At the end:
# Cold-Call Prep — [case] — [date]
**Questions drilled:** [N]
**Strong:** [questions where they were confident + right]
**Shaky:** [questions where they guessed or hedged]
**Missed:** [questions where they didn't know]
## Before class tomorrow:
- [specific thing to re-check — facts they got wrong, rule they couldn't state]
- [if shaky on policy/theory: "read the dissent again — that's usually where policy questions come from"]
## Questions likely to come up in class:
- [top 3 of the 10 — the ones the professor is most likely to lead with]
Integration
- case-brief: if the student hasn't briefed the case yet, offer to run
/law-student:case-brief before cold-call prep. A brief is a cold-call prep tool too.
- socratic-drill: if prep surfaces a weak spot in the subject (not just this case), follow with
/law-student:socratic-drill [subject].
- flashcards: if the case's rule is one the student should memorize, offer to add to the flashcard deck.
What this skill does not do
- Be the professor. The actual cold-call can go anywhere. This skill predicts patterns; professors surprise.
- Replace reading the case. If you haven't read it, the skill can't help you — questions require text you've absorbed.
- Give you the case's holding without asking you first. Drill-me pattern: I ask, you answer.
- Predict jurisdiction-specific niche questions. If the professor has known hobby horses, capture them in ~/.codebuddy/plugins/config/legal-workflows/law-student/practice-profile.md class notes and the skill can weight accordingly; otherwise, it works from general patterns.
1---2name: cold-call-prep3description: Prep for a cold-call — predict the professor's likely questions and drill them Socratically, flagging where you're shaky so you know what to re-read before class. Use when the user says "prep for class tomorrow", "cold call [case]", "what might [professor] ask on", or points at assigned reading.4---5
6# /cold-call-prep
7
81. Load `~/.codebuddy/plugins/config/legal-workflows/law-student/practice-profile.md` → class list, professors, learning style.
92. Apply the workflow below.
103. Identify reading (case name + citation, professor, class, syllabus context).
114. Predict 6-10 likely questions across categories (Facts / Holding / Reasoning / Application / Policy), weighted to professor's known tendencies.
125. Drill using socratic pattern — ask, wait, push back, narrow when stuck. Don't give answers.
136. Post-drill summary: strong/shaky/missed; what to re-check before class.
14
15---
16
17## Real-matter check
18
19If the question the student is asking sounds like it's about a REAL situation — their lease, their parking ticket, their family's business, their friend's arrest, a real dollar amount, a real deadline, a real party name — stop.
20
21> "This sounds like a real situation, not a hypothetical. I can't give you legal advice, and you can't give it either — you're not a lawyer yet. If this is real, [the person] needs an actual lawyer: legal aid, your school's clinic, a lawyer referral service (your jurisdiction's bar association, law society, or legal aid body), or (if there's money) a private attorney. I'm happy to help you understand the general legal concepts involved, but that's study, not advice."
22
23Watch for: real names, real addresses, real dates, specific dollar amounts, "my landlord/boss/parent/friend," "I got a ticket/letter/notice," deadlines measured in days. Any one of these is a trigger.
24
25## Purpose
26
27Cold-calling lives or dies on preparation. The professor has read the case dozens of times and knows the questions; the student has read it once. This skill narrows the gap — predicts the likely question patterns for the case, drills the student on them, and surfaces what they haven't locked in.
28
29Not a replacement for reading the case. A test that you actually did.
30
31## Confidence discipline
32
33- When the student provides case text or casebook excerpts: I predict questions based on the actual text. Confident.
34- When the student provides only a case name: I predict based on what I know about the case. Flag `[UNCERTAIN]` on any question that depends on case details I'm not sure of. Strongly recommend the student pastes the case or casebook treatment first.
35- If I don't know the case well: say so. "I don't have a reliable read on this case — paste the text or casebook treatment and I can work from that. Otherwise my questions are educated guesses."
36
37## Load context
38
39- `~/.codebuddy/plugins/config/legal-workflows/law-student/practice-profile.md` → current classes, professors, learning style
40- User-provided: case name / case text / casebook pages / reading list
41
42## Workflow
43
44### Step 1: Identify the reading + professor
45
46- Case name and citation
47- Professor (from ~/.codebuddy/plugins/config/legal-workflows/law-student/practice-profile.md class list — tone and focus vary by professor)
48- Class / subject area
49- Where this case falls in the syllabus (for context — is this the first case on the topic, a narrowing case, a counterexample?)
50
51### Step 2: Predict the questions
52
53Professors cold-call in recurring patterns. Predict across these categories:
54
55**Facts-level (warm-up):**
56- Who are the parties? What happened? Procedural posture?
57- What did the trial court do? The appellate court below?
58- Why is this in the casebook? What subject is it illustrating?
59
60**Holding / rule:**
61- What's the holding? One sentence.
62- What's the rule that comes out of this case — the portable takeaway?
63- How would you phrase the rule if it were in your outline?
64
65**Reasoning:**
66- Why did the court decide this way?
67- What arguments did the court reject?
68- Was there a dissent? What did it argue?
69
70**Application / hypos:**
71- What if [fact X] were different — same outcome?
72- How does this case compare to [prior case in the syllabus]?
73- What's the limiting principle? Where does this rule stop?
74
75**Policy / theory:**
76- What's the policy the court is protecting?
77- Does this rule make sense? Alternative approaches?
78
79**Professor-specific flavor (from ~/.codebuddy/plugins/config/legal-workflows/law-student/practice-profile.md notes):**
80- If the professor is known for hypo-heavy calls, weight Application/Hypo questions
81- If policy-heavy, weight Policy/Theory
82- If fact-heavy socratic (Socratic 101 Paper Chase style), weight Facts + Holding
83
84Pick 6-10 questions across these categories. Rank by likelihood of being asked first (Facts usually go first, then Holding, then the harder categories).
85
86### Step 3: Drill
87
88Use the `socratic-drill` pattern:
89
901. Ask Question 1. Wait for answer.
912. If right + well-reasoned: acknowledge, move to Question 2.
923. If right but sloppy: don't let it slide. "You got there, but explain — why does the court's reasoning support that?"
934. If wrong: don't give the answer. Ask a narrowing question. "What facts does the court rely on?" Walk them to it.
945. If stuck: narrow further. "Before we go to the holding — what's the procedural posture?"
956. If genuinely lost: tell them to re-read the case. "This is a re-read, not a guess-your-way-through. Come back when you've read it again."
96
97### Step 4: Post-drill summary
98
99At the end:
100
101```markdown
102# Cold-Call Prep — [case] — [date]
103
104**Questions drilled:** [N]
105**Strong:** [questions where they were confident + right]
106**Shaky:** [questions where they guessed or hedged]
107**Missed:** [questions where they didn't know]
108
109## Before class tomorrow:
110- [specific thing to re-check — facts they got wrong, rule they couldn't state]
111- [if shaky on policy/theory: "read the dissent again — that's usually where policy questions come from"]
112
113## Questions likely to come up in class:
114- [top 3 of the 10 — the ones the professor is most likely to lead with]
115```
116
117## Integration
118
119- **case-brief:** if the student hasn't briefed the case yet, offer to run `/law-student:case-brief` before cold-call prep. A brief is a cold-call prep tool too.
120- **socratic-drill:** if prep surfaces a weak spot in the subject (not just this case), follow with `/law-student:socratic-drill [subject]`.
121- **flashcards:** if the case's rule is one the student should memorize, offer to add to the flashcard deck.
122
123## What this skill does not do
124
125- **Be the professor.** The actual cold-call can go anywhere. This skill predicts patterns; professors surprise.
126- **Replace reading the case.** If you haven't read it, the skill can't help you — questions require text you've absorbed.
127- **Give you the case's holding without asking you first.** Drill-me pattern: I ask, you answer.
128- **Predict jurisdiction-specific niche questions.** If the professor has known hobby horses, capture them in ~/.codebuddy/plugins/config/legal-workflows/law-student/practice-profile.md class notes and the skill can weight accordingly; otherwise, it works from general patterns.
infometa