Reviews or drafts the agreement that pays an employee to settle their claims — and flags the statutory conditions that decide whether it actually binds them. Works under s.203 ERA 1996 for England & Wales. Flags apparent s.203 condition gaps for a solicitor to confirm (writing, specific complaints, independent adviser, identification, insurance, statement of conditions), drafts the substantive terms (sum, tax characterisation, confidentiality, references, restrictive covenants, indemnities), and surfaces enforceability risks. Does not rule on validity and is not legal advice. Use when the user says 'review this settlement agreement', 'draft a settlement agreement', 'compromise agreement' (old term), or asks whether an agreement is binding.
settlement-agreement-review
Reviews or drafts the agreement that pays an employee to settle their claims — and flags the statutory conditions that decide whether it actually binds them.
A settlement agreement only bars statutory employment claims if it satisfies the cumulative conditions in s.203 ERA 1996; miss one and the employee can take the money and still claim. This skill checks the six conditions and flags apparent gaps for a solicitor to confirm, reviews the substantive terms against the party's position (employer or employee), and surfaces the tax and enforceability risks. It does not rule on validity and is not legal advice.
For employment solicitors checking an agreement before sign-off, in-house teams reviewing a leaver's terms, and employees' advisers stress-testing an offer.
Install
git clone https://github.com/b1rdmania/settlement-agreement-review ~/.claude/skills/settlement-agreement-review
Or in a Legalise workspace: add it from the skill library — review the manifest, grant capabilities, enable on a matter, run from chat. Every run leaves a signed, auditable record.
Usage
/settlement-agreement-review --mode=review --party=employee
/settlement-agreement-review --mode=draft --party=employer
Run it against the agreement text and the facts: who is leaving, on what terms, the payment breakdown, and which side you act for. In review mode it returns a marked-up review with risk flags; in draft mode, a clean draft to refine.
What it does
- Checks the agreement against the six s.203 ERA conditions (writing, specific complaints, independent adviser, adviser identified, adviser insured, statement of conditions) and reports apparent status — flagging gaps for a solicitor to confirm.
- Reviews the substantive terms — payment breakdown, confidentiality and non-disparagement, reference, warranties, restrictive covenants, claims schedule, tax indemnity — against the party's position.
- Surfaces tax issues under ITEPA 2003, including PENP on a PILON, with every figure marked as an accountant prompt rather than authoritative.
- Outputs either a commented review with prioritised changes or a clean draft.
- Marks every uncertain point inline —
[CONDITION GAP],[NOT TAX ADVICE],[CITE NEEDED],[SME VERIFY]— so nothing reads as settled.
What it doesn't do
- Provide legal advice — it flags apparent issues for a qualified adviser to confirm.
- Rule on whether the agreement is valid — it reports apparent s.203 status only; a solicitor confirms validity.
- Provide the independent advice the employee needs — that must come from a qualified adviser per s.203(3A) ERA.
- Compute tax authoritatively — every figure needs accountant or tax counsel sign-off.
- Verify case law or statute against a live source — check any authority it cites before relying on it.
- Cover Scotland or Northern Ireland (different statutory framing).
Requirements
- Claude Code or Claude Cowork. No MCP connectors required.
- A matter to run against: the agreement text and the surrounding facts.
License
Apache-2.0.