Sample output: Settlement Agreement Issue Spotter
This is an illustrative sample of what the Settlement Agreement Issue Spotter skill produces. Every party, date, document, and fact is fictional — invented for illustration only.
The fictional scenario
Sample Request — settlement-agreement-issue-spotter
Fictional illustration. All parties, facts, figures, sections, and clauses below are invented for this example. The example contains no real or invented legal authority.
Please run settlement-agreement-issue-spotter on a marital settlement agreement draft and surface the issues for our supervising attorney.
Matter facts
- The parties: Dana Ellis and Cameron Ellis (fictional), divorcing spouses. The user represents Dana Ellis.
- Matter type: divorce/dissolution.
- Case stage: negotiation; the draft has not been signed.
- Jurisdiction: governing law
not provided.
Materials provided (fictional)
- A fictional "Marital Settlement Agreement" draft, with sections numbered:
- §1 Recitals
- §2 Parenting and Custody
- §3 Child Support
- §4 Spousal Support
- §5 Division of Property and Debts (refers to "Schedule A")
- §6 Insurance
- §7 Dispute Resolution
- §8 General Provisions and Signatures
Stated facts
- "Schedule A" is referenced in §5 but is not attached to the draft.
- §3 says child support "will be paid as agreed by the parties" with no figure or mechanism.
- §4 and §8 both appear to address how spousal support can be changed, and the client thinks they may not match.
- §2 sets out a parenting schedule but, the client says, does not mention holidays.
Please: produce a key-terms table with section references, an issue list, an ambiguity list, and a missing-provisions list, and include attorney verification questions. Do not conclude whether the agreement is fair or enforceable.
What the skill produced
Sample Output — settlement-agreement-issue-spotter
Draft work product for attorney review. Not legal advice. Every party, fact, figure, section, and clause below is fictional and illustrative. This example contains no real or invented legal authority. It shows the shape of the skill's deliverable — not a model answer for any matter.
Capability and Reliance Notice
This is a draft issue-spot of a settlement agreement for a qualified, licensed attorney. It does not provide legal advice, conclude whether the agreement is fair, enforceable, valid, or adequate, decide whether custody or support terms are appropriate, determine tax consequences, characterize property, or recommend signing or rejecting. Every item below is an open question for counsel. A qualified attorney must review the agreement before any signing or reliance.
Safety Note
No safety concern was raised in this request. If one arises, route to skills/family-law/domestic-violence-safety-referral-checklist/SKILL.md.
Gates Table
| Gate | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Parties and roles | Dana Ellis (client); Cameron Ellis (spouse) | User request |
| Matter type | Divorce / dissolution | User request |
| Jurisdiction / governing law | not provided [verify jurisdiction] | — |
| Case stage | Negotiation; draft unsigned | User request |
Key Terms Table
| Term | Plain-language summary | Section reference |
|---|---|---|
| Recitals | Identifies the parties and the purpose of the agreement | §1 |
| Parenting and custody | Sets out a parenting schedule | §2 |
| Child support | States support "will be paid as agreed by the parties" | §3 |
| Spousal support | Addresses spousal support and its modification | §4 |
| Property and debt division | Divides property and debts per "Schedule A" | §5 |
| Insurance | Addresses insurance obligations | §6 |
| Dispute resolution | Sets out a dispute-resolution process | §7 |
| General provisions | General terms; also references spousal-support change | §8 |
Issue List
| Issue | Section | Neutral description | Why it is an open question for counsel |
|---|---|---|---|
| Child support has no figure or mechanism | §3 | §3 says support is "as agreed by the parties" with no amount, formula, or payment mechanism | An open term leaves the support obligation undefined; counsel must assess whether it is workable |
| Possible conflict on spousal-support modification | §4 and §8 | Both sections appear to address how spousal support may be changed | If §4 and §8 state different rules, the agreement is internally inconsistent |
| Schedule A is referenced but absent | §5 | §5 divides property "per Schedule A," which is not attached | The property division cannot be reviewed without the schedule |
| Parenting schedule omits holidays | §2 | §2 sets a schedule but, per the client, does not address holidays | A schedule with no holiday terms commonly creates administration disputes |
Ambiguity List
| Ambiguous term | Section | Readings it is open to |
|---|---|---|
| "as agreed by the parties" (child support) | §3 | (a) a placeholder for a figure to be inserted; (b) an intent to leave support to future agreement; (c) a reference to a separate document — all ambiguous |
| Spousal-support modification | §4 / §8 | Whether §4 governs, §8 governs, or both apply — ambiguous until the two sections are compared |
Missing Provisions
- Schedule A — referenced in §5 but not attached;
not found. - A child support amount, formula, or payment mechanism in §3 —
not found. - Holiday and special-day terms within the §2 parenting schedule —
not foundper the client. - A governing-law statement — not identified in the materials;
not provided.
Attorney Verification Checklist
- [ ] Jurisdiction and governing law are confirmed
[verify jurisdiction]. - [ ] All section references match the source draft.
- [ ] Schedule A is obtained and reviewed before §5 is relied upon.
- [ ] §4 and §8 are compared to confirm whether they conflict.
- [ ] The §3 child-support term is resolved into a definite obligation.
- [ ] No conclusion on fairness, enforceability, adequacy, or tax consequences has been drawn here; counsel makes those determinations.
Assumptions
- Assumed the draft provided is the current version under negotiation —
[CONFIRM]. - Issues, ambiguities, and missing provisions are surfaced as open questions; none is resolved, and no fairness or enforceability view is offered.