Use when extracting and auditing explicit assumptions, hidden assumptions, missing facts, missing documents, jurisdiction gaps, deadline gaps, client-role ambiguity, escalation items, business decision points, and professional-responsibility concerns in draft legal work product.
When to use
A draft may have filled gaps silently or treated uncertain facts as established.
A document review, research memo, client update, demand letter, or risk matrix contains assumptions or missing-input notes.
The user asks what facts are still needed, what assumptions are built into the analysis, or what could change the conclusion.
A matter is moving from a draft output into attorney review or a matter workspace.
Required inputs
The complete draft to audit.
The source documents, user facts, and instructions available for comparison.
The intended use, audience, client role, and jurisdiction if known.
If the draft is missing, stop and request it. If source materials are missing, audit the draft internally and mark the source-comparison limitation.
Use when running a final quality gate before legal draft work product is sent, filed, relied upon, or delivered for attorney review, producing must-confirm facts, law, citations, client decisions, ethics flags, privilege flags, jurisdiction/deadline flags, and a ready-or-not-ready status.
When to use
A high-risk legal output is about to be sent, filed, delivered, or relied upon.
A draft demand letter, client memo, research summary, risk assessment, contract review, or filing-bound draft needs final attorney-review triage.
Other quality checks have produced findings that need to be consolidated.
The user asks whether a draft is ready for attorney review.
Required inputs
The complete final draft to gate.
Source materials, citations, assumptions, and prior quality-check reports if available.
Intended recipient, use, jurisdiction, governing law, posture, and any deadline context.
Any client decisions, business positions, or attorney instructions already supplied.
Use when reviewing legal citations, authorities, quotations, and authority-backed propositions to classify citation source status, flag unverifiable or malformed authorities, and prepare attorney verification items without claiming automated legal citation verification.
When to use
A draft contains cases, statutes, regulations, rules, agency guidance, quotations, treatises, articles, or legal-source URLs.
A user asks whether citations look real, complete, current, binding, persuasive, or properly used.
A research memo, rule summary, demand letter, brief section, or legal analysis includes legal authorities.
A source-validation or red-team pass has flagged citation concerns.
A draft may rely on model-suggested authorities that need attorney verification.
Required inputs
The complete draft containing citations.
Any cited authority text, source documents, URLs, research notes, or source list available in the matter file.
Jurisdiction, court, agency, governing law, date of analysis, and intended use if known.
If the draft is not provided, stop and request it. If sources are not provided, classify citations but mark verification status as limited.
Use when stress-testing draft legal work product for hallucination risk by separating factual claims, legal claims, cited authorities, user-provided information, model-generated information, unsupported claims, uncertainty, and safer revisions.
When to use
A draft contains legal claims, factual claims, citations, quotations, or confident conclusions that may be unsupported.
A user asks for a hallucination check, unsupported-claim audit, or safer revised version.
A draft will be sent externally, filed, used in a client communication, or relied on for a high-risk decision.
A model produced the draft without a clear claim/source table.
Required inputs
The complete draft to red-team.
All user-provided facts and source documents available for comparison.
Any cited authorities, research notes, or source lists.
The intended use and recipient.
If the draft is missing, stop and request it. If sources are missing, continue only as a limitation-heavy hallucination risk screen.
Use when revising draft legal work product to remove AI-sounding filler, vague risk language, unsupported certainty, and style defects while preserving citations, defined terms, quotations, privilege labels, client instructions, and attorney-review warnings.
When to use
A draft memo, email, demand letter, risk table, contract review, checklist, or client update sounds generic, padded, or AI-written.
A draft overuses phrases such as "notably," "moreover," "it is important to note," "delve," "landscape," "underscore," "robust," or similar generic phrasing.
The user asks to make a legal draft clearer, tighter, more lawyerly, or less AI-sounding.
A draft contains conclusory or vague legal risk language that should be tied to facts, sources, or attorney-review caveats.
A draft is external-facing and needs clearer agency, responsibility, and tone before attorney review.
Required inputs
The complete draft to revise.
The intended audience and use: internal attorney, client, court, opposing party, regulator, business stakeholder, or other recipient.
Any required style constraints, client instructions, defined terms, privilege designation, and non-editable language.
Optional: source documents or authority list, if the polish pass must avoid altering cited propositions.
If the draft is not provided, stop and request it. Do not polish from a summary alone.
Use when checking whether draft legal work product matches the requested format, required sections, labels, tables, chronology, checklist, matrix, memo, email, demand letter, client update, or research-summary structure.
When to use
A draft may not match the requested output format.
A draft should follow an AgentCounsel skill's Output Format but appears incomplete.
The user asks to check formatting, sections, table columns, chronology structure, checklist structure, or memo/email/demand-letter format.
A platform pack or one-off prompt output needs a deterministic structure check before attorney review.
Required inputs
The draft output to check.
The requested format, originating skill, template, or client formatting instructions.
Any required sections, table columns, headings, labels, or checklist items.
If the requested format is unknown, infer the likely format from the draft type only as a provisional check and state the limitation.
Use when reviewing draft legal work product for confidential client information, privileged communications, work-product labeling, redaction/anonymization needs, external-facing disclosure risk, and safer versions for the intended recipient.
When to use
A draft may be sent outside the legal team, to a client, opposing party, regulator, court, vendor, or business stakeholder.
A draft contains client names, employee names, addresses, account numbers, emails, sensitive facts, privileged communications, or attorney mental impressions.
A matter workspace or output needs privilege/work-product labeling reviewed.
The user asks for a redacted, anonymized, or external-facing version.
Required inputs
The draft to review.
Intended recipient, distribution plan, and whether the output is internal or external.
Any matter confidentiality instructions, client restrictions, protective order, NDA, or privilege-designation guidance.
If recipient and distribution plan are missing, flag that as a gate before external use.
Use when checking whether a legal memo, contract review, demand letter, risk matrix, research summary, draft filing, or other legal AI output is reliable enough to rely on — adversarially stress-testing it before attorney review to surface invented authority, unsupported claims, weak reasoning, jurisdiction and deadline gaps, and professional-responsibility issues.
When to use
The user asks to check, sanity-check, or quality-control a legal memo, a contract or document review, a demand letter, a legal analysis, a risk matrix, a client email, a research summary, or a draft filing.
The user asks "is this good enough?", "is this ready to send?", or "can I rely on this?"
The user asks for the weaknesses, blind spots, or missing issues in a legal draft.
The user asks for a hallucination check, a citation check, or a check for invented authority.
The user asks whether a draft is ready for — or has been adequately prepared for — attorney review.
Any AgentCounsel skill has produced a draft and a defect check is warranted before it is finalized or relied upon.
A high-stakes legal output is about to be sent, filed, or acted on and a final adversarial pass is wanted.
A draft has been revised and a targeted re-check of the changed sections is needed.
Required inputs
The complete draft or output to be verified (uploaded or pasted). Do not verify from a description or summary alone.
The type of output and the skill or process that produced it, if known — this tells the verifier what structure and sourcing standards apply.
The stated purpose and intended recipient of the output (internal attorney, client, court, opposing party, regulator).
Any source materials the draft relied on — provided documents, research, cited authority — if available, so the verifier can check claims against them rather than only flagging them.
Optional: the jurisdiction and governing law the output is meant to address — if provided, the verifier can flag jurisdiction mismatches as well as structural defects.
If the draft text is not provided, stop and request it. Do not conduct verification on a paraphrase or description of a draft.
Use when applying a structured, jurisdiction-agnostic method to identify, rate, and prioritize legal risks in a situation, producing a risk register with severity bands and a prioritized summary for attorney review.
When to use
A user asks to "assess the risks," "identify the legal exposure," "flag the issues," or "map the risk" in a transaction, document, agreement, matter, or situation.
An attorney or legal team needs a structured first-pass risk inventory before deciding how to proceed.
Multiple risk areas are potentially in play and need to be organized, compared, and prioritized for attorney attention.
A preliminary risk picture is needed to support a business or internal decision, with the explicit understanding that attorney review is required before reliance.
A matter intake, contract review, or legal research memo has been completed and the next step is organizing identified issues into a risk register for the responsible attorney.
Recurring risk-assessment needs (portfolio management, transaction screening, compliance review) call for a repeatable, structured methodology.
Required inputs
A description of the situation, transaction, document, or matter to be assessed. The more specific the input, the more targeted the risk identification.
The client's role and posture: who the client is, what position they occupy, and what they are trying to achieve or protect.
The practice area or subject-matter scope of the assessment — specifying whether the assessment is limited to, for example, contract risk, regulatory exposure, employment risk, or all legal risk.
Optional but recommended: the jurisdiction and governing law. If not provided, all jurisdiction-specific risk characterizations must carry [verify jurisdiction].
Optional: any documents, provisions, facts, or prior work product bearing on the risks — for example, a contract reviewed under nda-review, an intake summary, or a prior legal research memo. These are incorporated as inputs, not verified independently by this skill.
Optional: any known risk tolerance, materiality threshold, or risk-management policy the client applies.
If the client's role and a description of the situation are not provided, stop and request them. Do not assume the client's position, fabricate facts, or populate a risk register from hypothetical scenarios.
Use when classifying whether cited sources, authorities, quotations, dates, and factual claims in draft legal work product are supported by materials available in the session, applying the source hierarchy in core/source-and-citation-discipline.md.
When to use
A draft legal work product contains citations, quotations, authority references, or factual claims that need to be checked before the draft is finalized or passed to attorney review.
A user asks to "verify the sources," "check the citations," "confirm these quotes are real," or "validate the authority in this draft."
The Red-Team Verifier (or any review process) has flagged specific citations or claims as unverified and a dedicated source check is needed.
A legal research memo, brief section, or analysis contains cases, statutes, regulations, or secondary sources that were gathered during research and need to be confirmed before attorney reliance.
A draft quotes from a source document (contract, filing, policy, statute) and the quotations need to be checked against the provided text.
The user wants a complete audit trail showing which sources in a draft are confirmed and which require additional verification.
Required inputs
The complete draft to be validated (uploaded or pasted). Do not validate from a summary or paraphrase.
The source documents or authorities that are supposed to support the claims in the draft — for example, the contract the draft reviews, the cases the memo cites, or the regulatory text the analysis references. These are the materials against which quotations and propositions are checked.
Optional: the skill or workflow that produced the draft — this informs which sourcing standards apply.
Optional: a list of specific citations or claims flagged for priority review.
If the draft is not provided, stop and request it. If source documents are not provided, the validation will be limited to classifying citations by tier and marking unsupported claims as unverifiable — note this limitation prominently.
Use when applying a disciplined analytical method to parse and interpret a statutory, regulatory, or contractual provision — mapping structure, defined terms, and competing readings — to produce a structured interpretation worksheet for attorney review.
When to use
A user needs to analyze what a provision means or whether it applies to a given set of facts.
The scope, reach, or limits of a statutory, regulatory, or contractual obligation are disputed or unclear.
A user asks to "parse this provision," "interpret this clause," "what does this section mean," or "does this apply to my situation."
Competing readings of the same text need to be identified, compared, and evaluated for purposes of drafting a memo, brief section, or negotiation position.
A provision contains ambiguity, a defined term with contested scope, or a structure question (such as whether a modifier applies to one element or all of them) that requires systematic analysis before attorney resolution.
A gap or conflict between two provisions needs to be framed before attorney analysis.
Required inputs
The exact text of the provision to be interpreted. Do not analyze from paraphrase or description alone; the operative language must be present.
The document or instrument in which the provision appears (statute, regulation, contract, ordinance, rule, or other), and the section or clause reference if known.
The interpretive question: what specific question is the analysis trying to answer? If the user has not stated a specific question, stop and ask — do not assume scope.
The factual context in which the provision is being applied: the facts or circumstances that trigger or potentially trigger the provision.
Optional but recommended: the jurisdiction and governing law, so that jurisdiction-specific verification items can be targeted. If not provided, flag all jurisdiction-bound points with [verify jurisdiction].
Optional: related provisions, definitions sections, or other parts of the same instrument that affect the provision's meaning.
If the provision text or the interpretive question is not provided, stop and request it. Do not reconstruct legislative text or contractual language from memory.