Use when reviewing an employee handbook or individual workplace policy — or a proposed change to one — for clarity, internal consistency, completeness, and legal risk flags requiring attorney and jurisdiction-specific review.
When to use
A user asks to "review our employee handbook" or "check this policy for problems."
An HR team is preparing to roll out a new or updated handbook and wants a structured gap and issues analysis before counsel review.
A policy has not been updated in several years and the user needs a systematic review of what may be stale.
A specific policy (e.g., remote work, leave, social media, progressive discipline) has been flagged as potentially problematic and the user needs an organized issues list.
Counsel is onboarding a new employer client and needs a first-pass issues inventory of existing policies.
The user phrases it as: "does our handbook cover everything it should?" or "flag anything that looks like a risk."
A user is proposing a change to one or more sections of an existing handbook and wants to know what else in the handbook the change may break, contradict, or affect before the change is published.
A proposed change reduces or removes an employee benefit or alters a commitment the handbook previously made, and the user needs those implications surfaced for attorney review.
Required inputs
The full policy or handbook text: uploaded or pasted. Do not review from a description — the actual document text is required.
If the input is a proposed change: the text of the proposed change AND the text of the current handbook or section(s) being changed. Both are required to perform the ripple-effect and benefit-reduction checks. If the rest of the handbook is not provided, those checks cannot be completed — flag the omission prominently and request the full document.
Jurisdiction(s): the state, province, or country in which the employer operates, or flag as unknown. Multi-state employers should indicate all relevant jurisdictions.
Employer size: approximate headcount. Certain legal obligations vary by employer size — flag size-dependent topics for attorney confirmation.
Industry or workforce type (if relevant): e.g., healthcare, construction, remote-only workforce. Flag industry-specific requirements for attorney confirmation.
Optional: the practice group's practice-profiles/employment.md if it has been populated and is loaded alongside this skill. If present, the skill uses its Standard Positions and Source-of-Truth Documents tables to benchmark the policy against the group's baseline template and standing positions. If absent, the skill proceeds without practice-profile benchmarking and asks the user to supply standing positions inline if needed.
If the document text is not provided, stop and request it. If jurisdiction or employer size is unknown, proceed with the review and flag all size- and jurisdiction-dependent items as [CONFIRM].
Use when reviewing an employment offer letter (and any restrictive-covenant exhibits) against the candidate's actual work jurisdiction and the employer's standard hiring practices to produce a structured draft review memo with a verdict, for attorney review.
When to use
An employer, HR team, or counsel asks for a first-pass review of an offer letter before it is sent to a candidate.
A candidate or their counsel asks for a structured review of an offer they have received.
A user asks to "check this offer," "is this offer letter okay to use," or "flag anything I should look at before signing."
The offer includes restrictive-covenant exhibits (non-compete, non-solicitation, IP assignment, confidentiality) and the team wants an issues list organized by covenant type.
Counsel needs a jurisdiction and classification flag-list to begin their own analysis.
Required inputs
The full offer letter text: uploaded or pasted. Do not review from a summary or description — the actual document text is required.
Candidate's actual work location: the physical location where the candidate will perform work — a specific city and state/province/country, or a confirmed remote home location. This is not the company headquarters unless they are the same. If unknown, stop and request it; the work jurisdiction determines which statutory requirements apply.
Role title and proposed compensation: the title as stated in the offer and the base salary or wage rate as stated.
Proposed exempt or non-exempt classification (where the employer has indicated one, or where the offer structure implies one): identify the stated or implied classification from the offer text.
Optional inputs — provide if available, skip if not:
Restrictive-covenant exhibits: any non-compete, non-solicitation, IP assignment, or confidentiality agreement attached to or referenced in the offer.
Employer's standard hiring practices or policy playbook: if the employer has a standard template or policy the offer is meant to follow, provide it to allow a conformance check.
The practice group's practice-profiles/employment.md if it has been populated and is loaded alongside this skill. If present, the skill uses its Standard Positions and Escalation Thresholds tables to benchmark the offer against the group's house hiring practices. If absent, the skill proceeds without practice-profile benchmarking and asks the user to supply standing positions inline if needed.
If the offer letter text is not provided, stop and request it before proceeding. If the candidate's work location is not provided, stop and request it. Do not fabricate, assume, or infer missing required inputs.
Use when supporting an attorney-directed internal investigation to track evidentiary coverage, connect evidence to issues, and draft a privileged investigation memorandum and audience-specific summaries as draft work product for attorney review.
When to use
An attorney is directing an internal investigation into employee misconduct, workplace complaints, financial irregularities, executive conduct, or whistleblower allegations and needs a structured framework to organize evidence and draft findings.
An attorney or HR professional needs to track evidentiary coverage across documents and interview notes and identify what has not yet been gathered.
A draft investigation memorandum needs to be assembled from gathered facts, organized by issue rather than by witness.
Audience-specific summaries (HR, leadership/board, outside counsel) need to be drafted from a completed investigation record.
The user needs a privileged, attorney-ready work product structure for an ongoing or completed investigation.
Required inputs
Allegation summary: the nature of the conduct at issue, the individual(s) alleged to have engaged in it (respondent identifier), the individual(s) who reported it (complainant identifier, if applicable), and the relevant timeframe.
Investigation type: HR/workplace conduct, financial irregularity, executive misconduct, whistleblower retaliation, or other. If unclear, describe and flag.
Attorney-direction confirmation: whether a supervising attorney has formally directed the investigation for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. If not confirmed, see the privilege-formation gate in the Workflow.
Workforce and organizational context: whether the workforce is unionized, whether the employer is a public-sector entity, and any other structural facts bearing on applicable rules. If unknown, flag with [CONFIRM: workforce/organizational context].
Gathered materials: documents, communications, policies, and interview notes received to date. These may be provided incrementally as the investigation proceeds.
Prior summaries or memos: any investigation summary, prior draft memo, or interim report already prepared.
If the allegation summary is not provided, stop and request it before proceeding. If attorney-direction status is unconfirmed, apply the privilege-formation gate before labeling any output as privileged. If other inputs are missing, note gaps and flag them as [CONFIRM: ...] items rather than proceeding on assumptions.
Use when organizing and reviewing a protected-leave situation to identify the leave frameworks that may apply, surface procedural obligations and deadlines requiring verified research, and flag adverse-action exposure — producing draft legal work product for attorney review.
When to use
An employer, HR professional, or attorney needs to organize the facts of an employee's leave and identify which protected-leave frameworks may apply.
A leave situation involves multiple frameworks that may run concurrently or interact (for example, medical leave and disability-accommodation leave arising from the same condition).
A question arises about what procedural obligations — notices, certifications, designation steps — have been met or remain outstanding.
An adverse action (termination, demotion, denial of reinstatement, or discipline) affecting an employee who is on, has recently taken, or has requested protected leave is being contemplated, and the employer needs to understand the exposure before proceeding.
A user asks: "Can we terminate this employee who is on leave?", "What do we owe someone returning from military leave?", "What happens if their leave runs out and they can't come back?", or similar questions about an employee's leave situation.
Required inputs
The leave situation: the type or types of leave at issue (e.g., medical, family, military or service-member, disability-related, or a combination). If unclear, describe the underlying reason for the absence.
The employee's work schedule and arrangement: full-time, part-time, or variable hours; whether leave is continuous or intermittent; and, if intermittent, how it has been taken or is anticipated to be taken.
Key dates: the leave start date; the expected or actual return date; any dates on which notices, certifications, or designation decisions were or were not communicated. Flag all dates as [deadline verification required] — do not use them to compute deadlines.
Procedural status: whether an eligibility notice has been issued; whether a designation notice has been issued; whether medical or other certification has been requested, received, or found insufficient; whether a cure opportunity has been provided.
Jurisdiction(s): the jurisdiction(s) in which the employee works. If unknown or in dispute, flag as [CONFIRM: governing jurisdiction].
Adverse action contemplated: whether any termination, demotion, denial of reinstatement, or disciplinary action is under consideration. If yes, describe it and its proposed timing.
If any required input is missing, stop and request it before proceeding. Do not infer jurisdiction from employer headquarters, fabricate leave dates, or assume procedural steps have been completed unless confirmed.
Use when reviewing a severance or separation agreement to produce a structured analysis of consideration, release scope, restrictive covenants, and open legal issues for attorney review.
When to use
A user asks to "review this severance agreement" or "what am I giving up if I sign this?"
An employee or employer has received a proposed separation agreement and needs a first-pass structured review.
Counsel needs a provision-by-provision issues list to begin their own analysis.
A user wants to understand what claims a release covers before agreeing or rejecting.
The user phrases it as: "help me understand what this says," "is this a good deal," or "what should we look at before signing?"
Required inputs
The full agreement text: uploaded or pasted. Do not review from a description — the actual document text is required.
Reviewing party: employee/departing worker or employer/company. The analysis will be framed from this party's perspective.
Jurisdiction: the state, province, or country whose law governs the agreement, or flag as unknown.
Employee age: confirm whether the employee is age 40 or over, as this affects statutory disclosure and timing requirements. If unknown, flag for attorney confirmation.
If the agreement text is not provided, stop and request it. Do not summarize, analyze, or opine on an agreement that has not been provided.
Use when organizing and reviewing the facts surrounding a proposed employee termination so an attorney can assess legal risk before the termination occurs.
When to use
A manager or HR professional is preparing to terminate an employee and wants to surface legal risk factors before proceeding.
An attorney needs a structured intake of termination facts to begin their risk assessment.
A user says "we want to let someone go — what should we be thinking about?" or "help me think through the risk of this termination."
A separation is being planned in the context of a reduction in force, performance management conclusion, or misconduct investigation.
The user needs to organize documentation in advance of a termination meeting.
Required inputs
Employee identifier: a role description or anonymized identifier. Do not use the employee's real name in reusable templates.
Employment status: at-will, fixed-term contract, collective bargaining agreement, or unknown. If unknown, flag for attorney confirmation.
Stated reason for termination: the specific reason the employer intends to assert (e.g., performance, misconduct, position elimination, restructuring).
Documentation history: what written documentation exists — performance improvement plans, written warnings, investigation reports, or records showing the business reason.
Tenure and role: length of employment, job title or level, and reporting structure.
If any required input is missing, stop and request it before proceeding. Do not fabricate facts, documentation status, or employment terms.
Use when a specific wage-and-hour or related employment question — such as overtime eligibility, exemption status, break entitlements, final-pay timing, paid-time-off payout, or leave eligibility — needs to be structured and analyzed against verified, jurisdiction-specific rules, producing a draft analysis for attorney review.
When to use
A user asks a specific question about overtime eligibility, exempt vs. non-exempt status, meal or rest break entitlements, final-pay timing, paid-time-off payout obligations, or leave eligibility for a particular worker or role.
An employer, HR professional, or attorney needs a structured, research-ready intake of a wage-and-hour issue before legal analysis begins.
A user asks: "Is this employee eligible for overtime?", "Do we have to pay out accrued PTO on termination?", "What are our break obligations for this schedule?", or a similar specific question.
A question involves computing back-pay or unpaid wages and the user needs to understand what must be researched and verified before any figure is calculated.
A question arises in a multi-jurisdiction employment context and the most-restrictive jurisdiction must be identified before analysis can begin.
Required inputs
The specific question: the precise wage-and-hour or employment question to be analyzed. If the question is vague, clarify it before proceeding.
The jurisdiction(s): the state, province, or country whose law governs the work. For a multi-jurisdiction employer, all relevant jurisdictions where the work is performed. If unknown, flag as [CONFIRM: governing jurisdiction] and do not proceed past fact-gathering.
The operative facts: the job title, a description of the worker's actual day-to-day duties and responsibilities, compensation structure and pay rate, hours worked and schedule, and the specific actions, payments, or events that gave rise to the question. General or conclusory descriptions of duties are not sufficient; the analysis depends on what the worker actually does.
If any required input is missing, stop and request it. Do not infer jurisdiction from the employer's headquarters, assume compensation structures, or fabricate duties not provided. Do not proceed with incomplete facts.
Use when organizing the facts of a proposed worker engagement and structuring an analysis of whether the worker should be classified as an employee or an independent contractor, producing a draft classification analysis memo for attorney review.
When to use
A company or HR professional is planning a new engagement with an individual worker and needs to think through whether the arrangement is supportable as an independent contractor relationship.
An attorney needs a structured intake of engagement facts to begin a classification risk assessment before work begins.
A user asks "can we bring this person on as a contractor?" or "what factors should we look at before we classify this engagement?"
A proposed arrangement involves a staffing agency, vendor SOW, or direct contractor agreement, and classification risk has not yet been assessed.
The user needs to compare the intended contract structure against the operational facts before the engagement is executed.
Required inputs
Description of the work: what the worker will do, day to day; whether the work is core to the company's business or peripheral; whether the engagement is project-based or indefinite in duration; and the level of specialization or skill required.
Control facts: whether the company will set the worker's hours or schedule; whether the work will be performed on company premises; who will direct the method and sequence of work; whether the company will have supervisory authority over the worker.
Economic facts: how the worker will be paid (flat fee, hourly, milestone, retainer); who will provide tools, equipment, and materials; whether the worker has or will have other clients during the engagement; and whether the worker bears any risk of profit or loss on the engagement.
Arrangement structure: whether this is a direct independent contractor agreement, a staffing-agency placement, or a vendor SOW; proposed duration; and whether the worker will be physically co-located with employees.
Classification purpose(s): the legal purpose(s) for which classification matters (e.g., income tax withholding, wage-and-hour obligations, unemployment insurance, benefits eligibility, workers' compensation coverage). Different purposes may trigger different tests under the governing jurisdiction's law.
Jurisdiction: the state, province, or country whose law will govern the engagement. If unknown, flag as [CONFIRM: governing jurisdiction].
If any required input is missing, stop and request it before proceeding. Do not fabricate facts, assumed durations, assumed pay structures, or inferred control arrangements.