# Lawstu Cold Call Prep

> Prepare for a Socratic cold call — anticipate the professor's chain of questions on assigned cases and rehearse crisp answers.

- Skill: `matrixx0070/lawstu-cold-call-prep` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add matrixx0070/lawstu-cold-call-prep`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/matrixx0070/lawstu-cold-call-prep/raw
- Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS)
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: Matrixx0070 (https://skillmd.com/u/matrixx0070)
- Updated: 2026-09-08
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/matrixx0070/lawstu-cold-call-prep

---


## When to use

Reach for this the night before class when you are on-call or fear you might be. You feed in the assigned cases (and your briefs); the skill role-plays the professor's escalating questions so you rehearse aloud instead of hoping.

**Not for:** answering *for* you in real time during class, or replacing the reading. It rehearses your understanding — it will not manufacture answers to a case you have not read. Not for exam-style issue drills (see `lawstu-irac-practice`) or building the semester outline (see `lawstu-outline-builder`).

## Method

1. **Load the assignment.** List each case and its role in the sequence (why did the professor pair these?). Decision point: if you cannot state the theme connecting the cases, that theme is the likely cold-call spine.
2. **Predict the opening.** Cold calls usually start "State the facts" or "What is the holding?" — rehearse a 30-second clean recitation.
3. **Build the escalation ladder.** Each answer invites a harder follow-up: facts → holding → reasoning → "why?" → hypothetical variation → policy. Draft the next question after every answer.
4. **Prep hypo variations.** Change one fact and re-argue. Professors probe the boundary of the rule, not its center.
5. **Rehearse aloud, timed.** Answer in complete but tight sentences; practice "I'm not certain, but the rule suggests…" for when you are stuck.
6. **Flag your two weakest cases** for a second pass.

## Example

Case on consideration. Ladder: "Facts?" → "Holding?" → "Why isn't past consideration enough?" → "Suppose the promise came *before* the act — same result?" → "What policy does the consideration doctrine protect?" You rehearse each rung so the pivot to the hypo does not blindside you.

## Pitfalls

- Memorizing facts but not the *why* — professors live in the reasoning.
- Freezing on the fact-variation hypo; always have a "here's how I'd reason it" move.
- Reading verbatim from your brief instead of speaking; it shows.
- Over-preparing case one, ignoring the case they actually call.

## Output format

```
Class + date | on-call: yes/likely
Per case:
  30s facts recitation
  Holding (one sentence)
  Escalation ladder: Q1 → Q2 → Q3 → hypo → policy
  Weak spot + fix
"Stuck" fallback line:
```

## Reference

- **Case-brief format** feeds this directly (`lawstu-case-brief`); a good brief is a cold-call script.
- **Socratic method:** the professor tests the rule's boundary via hypotheticals — expect fact variations, not recall (`lawstu-socratic-drill`).
- **IRAC** underlies strong oral answers: name the issue, state the rule, apply, conclude — even out loud.