Explore

Contract intelligence and contract operations workflow skill for Claude and Codex. Guides the full contract lifecycle review process from intake and playbook normalization through clause review, deviation scoring, negotiation planning, approval routing, QA, and action recommendations. Reviews legal, business, operational, compliance, privacy, security, technology, and AI-related risks across contracts and legal documents. Supports NDAs, SaaS agreements, DPAs, procurement contracts, commercial agreements, contract comparisons, redlines, approval packages, clause research, and drafting. **Warning**-Comprehensive reviews can consume significant Claude/OpenAI tokens, especially for large agreements, playbooks, exhibits, schedules, and multi-document reviews.

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.

Post-hoc verification and trust audit of AI-generated factual and interpretive claims. Classifies claims by type and salience, routes them to domain-appropriate sources, scores trustworthiness on a tiered scale with an Interpolated verdict for plausible-but-unsupported detail, and assesses rhetorical fairness on interpretive claims. Designed with a focus on healthcare law in England and Wales, but with general applicability beyond.

Assess whether Government of India approval is required for foreign investment in an Indian company under Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and the Non-Debt Instruments Rules, 2019. The skill systematically gathers transaction details, evaluates sectoral entry routes and caps, assesses land border country restrictions under applicable laws, and delivers a preliminary compliance note. Produces clear guidance on whether the investment falls within Automatic Route or requires Government approval.

Produces properly-formatted legal documents in Word (.docx). The user provides the substantive content (instructions, attached files, project knowledge); the skill handles document architecture and formatting. * No precedent or template required * Seven document families: agreements, corporate documents, litigation, memos, employment, policies, correspondence * Jurisdiction-agnostic — works across any legal system the user specifies * Multi-Chain numbering, defined-terms convention, structured recitals, atomic signature blocks * Also reformats existing .docx to a consistent house style * Works in Claude.ai, Cowork, and Claude for Word

Assesses a legal argument, submission, or piece of structured reasoning from the perspective of a judge reading it cold under time pressure. Produces a structured seven-part assessment: what the case appears to be about, immediate points of confusion, what feels strong, what feels weak, what is assumed but unproved, a provisional confidence level (low/medium/high), and what would be needed to persuade. The skill does not rewrite, improve, or attack the argument — it tells you how it actually lands on a sceptical, experienced reader with no prior context. Works on skeleton arguments, witness statements, letters before action, position statements, academic articles, and non-legal structured reasoning.

Act as experienced opposing counsel to attack, undermine, and expose weaknesses in a legal argument, submission, witness statement, or structured reasoning. Produces a six-part adversarial analysis: 1. A core theory of attack identifying the single most effective way to defeat the argument; 2. A reconstructed version of the opposing argument stripped of rhetoric to expose its fragility; 3. Primary lines of attack grouped by category (legal misstatement, evidential gaps, causation failures, internal inconsistency, over-reliance on assertion, procedural weakness); 4. An "if I were the judge" section showing how a sceptical tribunal would dismantle the argument; 5. Surgical strikes - 3 to 5 high-impact points ready for oral submissions; and 6. An analysis of what the argument is trying to hide. Written in formal, adversarial British English for a legally trained audience.

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.

Conduct AI governance, legal-risk, privacy, compliance, procurement, or vendor-risk reviews of internal AI use cases, AI product features, LLM workflows, or third-party AI vendors. The skill runs a structured intake process, identifies required documentation and missing evidence, maps the use case to AI governance frameworks and applicable legal domains, and produces a governance review with scorecards, findings, owners, remediation actions, and follow-up questions.

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.

Collaboration platform configuration methodology for legal matter sites. Site architecture, workflow identification, dashboard design, data quality governance, and user adoption for SharePoint, Teams, and equivalent platforms. Outputs are platform-agnostic enough to brief IT or build simple automations.