Explore

Use when a lawyer, legal team, or client needs to assess AI agents that can act on someone's behalf: send messages, search, draft, file, pay, delete, connect to accounts, use tools, or rely on external data. Produces a practical delegation, oversight, accountability, and control audit for legal operations.

Audits the transition from legal AI output to reliance, recommendation, execution, or real-world commitment. Use it before an AI-generated analysis, memo, contract review, compliance finding, or workflow output is acted upon to check whether authority, evidence, mandate, uncertainty, procedure, and review conditions remain sufficient.

Audits AI-assisted legal, compliance, governance, and institutional decisions before reliance to determine whether the responsible human or institution has enough access to the evidence, reasoning basis, uncertainty, authority, and review path to genuinely own the decision rather than merely approve, sign, or transmit it.

A picture may be worth a thousand words. Legal work sure runs on lots of words. So why words when picture? Stop rereading the files. Start seeing the matter. Latest updates at: https://github.com/nanparth/ai-skill-hub /legal-diagram turns dense legal documents, matter notes, and brainstorming dumps into clear, editable Mermaid diagrams to make strategizing and communicating clearer and faster. Use timelines and Gantt charts to uncover chronology gaps, flowcharts and decision trees to map litigation paths and negotiation possibilities, and entity relationship or class diagrams to clarify ownership, control, and corporate structure. Upload source files (.md, .docx, .pdf, .xlsx, or .pptx), paste text, or describe the issue you’re working on. /legal-diagram guides you through a simple interactive process to setup the skill and create timelines, Gantt charts, org charts, obligation checklists, litigation flowcharts, decision trees, corporate structure diagrams, and more.

Audits legal AI outputs and workflows for honest compression: unnecessary complexity, false simplicity, excessive caveats, hidden uncertainty and poor cost per legally acceptable output.

Audits legal AI outputs, prompts, skills, workflows and MCP/tool instructions for fluent but unsupported reasoning, missing evidence, overconfidence, hidden assumptions, weak causal links and absent human-review gates.

When your bar comes asking "show me how you billed AI-assisted work" — and ABA 512, Florida 24-1, California, New York, and DC all have opinions out — you need an artifact that survives review. billable-time produces it. From your Claude Code session logs, it drafts reviewable time entries plus a printable HTML audit packet with: SHA-256 chain of evidence (source files + matter.yml + active disclosure pack + verifiable artifact self-hash), attorney identity and signature block, a bar-opinion disclosure pack with starter language for five jurisdictions, and content-aware deterministic narratives derived from filename and tool shape — never from prompt text by default. The tool refuses to bill on its own. --strict mode refuses to ship the artifact if any audit invariant fails (broad routes, missing attorney, missing/unverified disclosure). Comes as a Node CLI and a self-contained browser version (no backend; JSONL never leaves the page). 15 invariant tests verify the contract. AGPL-3.0.

Tribunal-prep skill modeled on Neal Katyal's Nov 2025 SCOTUS tariffs argument and his AI sparring partner "Harvey." Five phases: (1) profile each decision-maker from prior opinions, questions, concurrences, and dissents — surface their doctrinal commitments and institutional concerns; (2) predict the bench — 3–7 likely questions per judge with the worry behind each, verbatim phrasing where confidence is high; (3) map escape routes — the narrowest holding each skeptical judge could sign without abandoning prior commitments; (4) spar adversarially — relentless follow-ups, calls out parroted lines, tracks which questions broke the lawyer; (5) hand the lawyer back to themselves with a < 150-word index card for the podium. The model is the sparring partner. The lawyer still wins the case. Use for oral argument, motion hearings, depositions, arbitrations, or stress-testing a brief before filing.

Helps a lawyer build and use a personalized Legal Guidance Vault — a local folder of structured, privilege-marked entries capturing legal guidance they've given, searchable later by topic, person, or product. Use this skill when the user says "set up my vault," "archive this meeting/email/thread/doc," "log the guidance I gave on [topic]," "save my notes from [meeting]," "what did I say about [topic]," "find the time I advised [person] on [topic]," or "search my vault for [topic]." Runs a setup interview to learn the user's tool stack (meeting notes, calendar, email, docs, messaging, vault location), then generates a customized vault prompt they can reuse in any future Claude session to start archiving and retrieving guidance.

Runs structured RFP processes for selecting outside counsel — from drafting the initial document through evaluating firm responses and producing a defensible selection recommendation for GC sign-off. An average law firm spends 47 hours on an RFP response. That cost gets built into the price of legal services. Poorly structured RFPs produce responses that are incomparable and select by default for the most polished proposal, not the best firm. This skill encodes the methodology for running processes that produce genuine comparability and defensible decisions.

Performance scorecard design, post-matter feedback collection, QBR preparation, and firm comparison for in-house legal ops teams evaluating outside counsel. Encodes the methodology for collecting, aggregating, and acting on firm performance data across the relationship lifecycle — from building the initial evaluation framework through to the comparative analysis that informs panel retention and exit decisions.

Executes the annual panel review cycle and ongoing panel governance decisions. Synthesises performance scorecard data, billing compliance records, and step-out patterns into panel-level recommendations. Produces the documentation for firm exits, coverage gap assessment, and competitive refresh processes. Covers the full panel governance workflow: annual health assessment through to firm exit and slot refresh.

Designs panel structures, defines firm selection criteria, runs right-sourcing analysis, and assesses coverage gaps for in-house legal teams building or formalising their outside counsel panel. Panel design is not panel review. Design asks: what should the panel look like? Review asks: is the panel performing? This skill builds the framework. Panel-review-rationalisation (Skill 8) measures against it.

Executes matter allocation and firm engagement from firm selection through to a live, properly-instructed matter. Match the right firm to a new matter using the right-sourcing framework. Produce a complete matter instruction ready to send. Generate the onboarding checklist that closes conflict clearance, engagement letter, OCG, and e-billing gates. Audit an existing instruction for gaps with a remediation note ready to send. This is the execution layer for a matter that has been sourced. Panel-design-selection (Skill 2) defines which firms are on the panel. RFP-pitch-management (Skill 3) selects firms through a competitive process. This skill instructs the selected firm and closes the onboarding gates.

Reviews outside counsel invoices against billing guidelines, flags non-compliant entries by category, and produces the documents needed to approve, reduce, reject, and communicate those decisions. Covers the full invoice compliance workflow: line-item review through to formal firm escalation. Works with or without an e-billing platform. Where an e-billing system is in place, LEDES format and UTBMS coding are hard gates. Where there is no e-billing system, invoice submission by email is the channel and UTBMS coding is a best-efforts flag.

Drafts, reviews, and maintains outside counsel guidelines (OCGs) — the operational document that sets expectations for how external law firms bill, staff, communicate, and deliver legal services. OCGs are the single lowest-cost, highest-impact intervention available to an in-house legal ops function. 60% of in-house teams don't have them. Of the 40% that do, 87% barely enforce them. This skill encodes the methodology for building OCGs calibrated to the team's maturity level and producing the internal business case to get them adopted.

AFA design, scope-to-fee matching, negotiation preparation, health check, and scope dispute assessment for in-house legal ops teams managing outside counsel arrangements. Design fee structures (fixed, capped, collar, blended, phased, success). Assess whether scope supports a proposed AFA. Prepare commercial positions for fee negotiations. Review existing AFAs against delivery data. Assess OOS claims and build dispute response. Trigger on: 'structure the fee', 'move off hourly', 'design an AFA', 'does scope support a fixed fee?', 'negotiate the fee', 'renegotiate the arrangement', 'is our AFA holding?', 'fee health check', 'cap is being approached', 'firm is claiming OOS', 'is this in scope?', 'is this OOS?', 'AI should reduce the cost', 'blended rate vs fixed', 'collar arrangement', 'phased fees'.

Reviews outside counsel invoices and related billing data for an in-house legal department, including LEDES or e-billing exports, OCGs, approved rates, discounts, budgets, AFAs, and staffing rules. Starts with internal comparisons before bringing in external data. Produces invoice review findings, MBR/QBR scorecards, dispute logs, and management reports. For demonstration purposes only and not professional advice.

Stakeholder mapping, communication plan design, reporting hierarchy, and mid-matter comms updates. Use when setting up a new matter and needing to identify who needs what information, designing the communication rhythm, building reporting structures for multi-jurisdiction programmes, or updating the comms plan when the stakeholder landscape changes.

Team structure, gearing analysis, continuity planning, and competing demand management for legal matters. Use when setting up a matter team, reviewing whether work is being done at the right grade, planning cover for an unavailable team member, or managing a resource conflict across matters.

Convert agreed scope into a structured matter plan — phases, workstreams, milestones, dependencies, owner assignments, and matter setup decisions. Use when planning a new matter, running a kickoff, building a workstream plan, structuring phases, or producing a plan to drive status reporting.

End-to-end external local counsel lifecycle management for multi-jurisdiction legal matters. LC selection criteria and capability assessment, engagement setup and instruction design, performance monitoring and check-in cadence, scope enforcement, and relationship escalation.

Scope management for legal matters — baseline capture, in-flight change control, OOS documentation, and scope retrospective. Use when asked to review scoping assumptions, assess whether work is in or out of scope, draft a scope change notice, track scope changes, prepare an OOS justification, run an OOS report, prepare a scope call agenda, or review what changed on a matter.

Draft matter status reports from emails, call notes, and updates. Internal and client-facing formats, RAG logic, variance commentary, escalation flags. Use when asked to draft a status report, write a project update, summarise matter progress, prepare a client report, create a weekly or monthly update, convert emails into a status summary, or produce any kind of matter reporting. Also triggers when the user pastes email threads and asks what the status is, or needs to turn internal updates into client-facing reports.