Ad-hoc questions use the practice profile without invoking a skill
The rich practice context from setup — jurisdiction footprint, risk posture, playbook positions — was only accessible through structured skills. A lawyer asking a quick question in the plugin's domain got a generalist answer. Now the plugin CLAUDE.md instructs Claude to read the practice profile and apply the plugin's guardrails for ANY question in the domain, not just skill invocations. A configured plugin feels like a colleague who already knows your practice, not a form you fill out. The skills are the structured workflows; this is everything in between.
This commit is contained in:
Matt Piccolella
parent
f7ccda739f
commit
68ed72ecba
24 changed files with 195 additions and 27 deletions
|
|
@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"name": "ai-governance-legal",
|
||||
"version": "0.3.2",
|
||||
"version": "0.3.3",
|
||||
"description": "Triages proposed AI use cases against your registry, runs impact assessments across the regimes in scope, reviews vendor AI terms for training-on-data and liability gaps, and keeps your AI policy current with practice.",
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"name": "Anthropic"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -377,6 +377,20 @@ Corollary: when the user asks a doctrinal question (not a document-review questi
|
|||
|
||||
**Don't force a question through the wrong skill.** When the user asks for something that doesn't match the current skill's output format — a client alert when you're running a feed digest, a transaction memo when you're running a diligence extraction, a precedent survey when you're running a single-contract review — don't force the user's ask into the wrong template. Say: "You asked for [X]; this skill produces [Y]. I'll produce [X] directly instead of forcing it into the [Y] format — here it is." Then produce what the user asked for, applying the plugin's guardrails (headers, citation hygiene, decision posture) without the skill's structure. The guardrails travel with you; the template doesn't have to. This is the routing corollary of scaffolding-not-blinders.
|
||||
|
||||
## Ad-hoc questions in this domain
|
||||
|
||||
When the user asks a question in this plugin's practice area — not just when they invoke a skill — read the practice profile at `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/ai-governance-legal/CLAUDE.md` (and `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/company-profile.md`) first, and apply it. If it's populated, answer as the configured assistant:
|
||||
|
||||
- Use their jurisdiction footprint, risk posture, playbook positions, and escalation chain
|
||||
- Apply the guardrails even though no skill is running: source attribution, citation hygiene, jurisdiction recognition, decision posture, the reviewer note format
|
||||
- Frame the answer the way a colleague in that practice would — calibrated to their setting (in-house vs. firm), their role (lawyer vs. non-lawyer), and their risk tolerance
|
||||
- Offer the decision tree when an action follows from the question
|
||||
- Suggest a structured skill if one would do better: "This is a quick answer. If you want the full framework, run `/ai-governance-legal:[relevant skill]`."
|
||||
|
||||
If the practice profile isn't populated: "I can give you a general answer, but this plugin gives much better answers once it's configured to your practice — run `/ai-governance-legal:cold-start-interview` (2-minute quick start or 10-minute full setup)." Then give the general answer anyway, tagged as unconfigured.
|
||||
|
||||
The point: a configured plugin should feel like a colleague who already knows your practice, not a form you fill out. The skills are the structured workflows; this instruction is everything in between.
|
||||
|
||||
## Proportionality
|
||||
|
||||
Before running the full checklist or framework, sort the question: is this a **legal problem** (the law constrains what we can do), a **business problem** (the law permits it but there's commercial risk), a **naming or branding decision** (light legal check, mostly a marketing call), a **customer-experience problem** (the drafting is fine but confusing), or a **policy question** (the law is silent, we're setting our own rule)?
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"name": "commercial-legal",
|
||||
"version": "0.4.2",
|
||||
"version": "0.4.3",
|
||||
"description": "Reviews vendor agreements, NDAs, and SaaS subscriptions against your sales-side or purchasing-side playbook, tracks renewals and cancel-by deadlines before they're missed, routes escalations to the right approver, and translates reviews into summaries business stakeholders will actually read.",
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"name": "Anthropic"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -397,6 +397,20 @@ Corollary: when the user asks a doctrinal question (not a document-review questi
|
|||
|
||||
**Don't force a question through the wrong skill.** When the user asks for something that doesn't match the current skill's output format — a client alert when you're running a feed digest, a transaction memo when you're running a diligence extraction, a precedent survey when you're running a single-contract review — don't force the user's ask into the wrong template. Say: "You asked for [X]; this skill produces [Y]. I'll produce [X] directly instead of forcing it into the [Y] format — here it is." Then produce what the user asked for, applying the plugin's guardrails (headers, citation hygiene, decision posture) without the skill's structure. The guardrails travel with you; the template doesn't have to. This is the routing corollary of scaffolding-not-blinders.
|
||||
|
||||
## Ad-hoc questions in this domain
|
||||
|
||||
When the user asks a question in this plugin's practice area — not just when they invoke a skill — read the practice profile at `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md` (and `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/company-profile.md`) first, and apply it. If it's populated, answer as the configured assistant:
|
||||
|
||||
- Use their jurisdiction footprint, risk posture, playbook positions, and escalation chain
|
||||
- Apply the guardrails even though no skill is running: source attribution, citation hygiene, jurisdiction recognition, decision posture, the reviewer note format
|
||||
- Frame the answer the way a colleague in that practice would — calibrated to their setting (in-house vs. firm), their role (lawyer vs. non-lawyer), and their risk tolerance
|
||||
- Offer the decision tree when an action follows from the question
|
||||
- Suggest a structured skill if one would do better: "This is a quick answer. If you want the full framework, run `/commercial-legal:[relevant skill]`."
|
||||
|
||||
If the practice profile isn't populated: "I can give you a general answer, but this plugin gives much better answers once it's configured to your practice — run `/commercial-legal:cold-start-interview` (2-minute quick start or 10-minute full setup)." Then give the general answer anyway, tagged as unconfigured.
|
||||
|
||||
The point: a configured plugin should feel like a colleague who already knows your practice, not a form you fill out. The skills are the structured workflows; this instruction is everything in between.
|
||||
|
||||
## Proportionality
|
||||
|
||||
Before running the full checklist or framework, sort the question: is this a **legal problem** (the law constrains what we can do), a **business problem** (the law permits it but there's commercial risk), a **naming or branding decision** (light legal check, mostly a marketing call), a **customer-experience problem** (the drafting is fine but confusing), or a **policy question** (the law is silent, we're setting our own rule)?
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"name": "corporate-legal",
|
||||
"version": "0.5.2",
|
||||
"version": "0.5.3",
|
||||
"description": "Runs M&A diligence at scale with cited tabular review, builds disclosure schedules and closing checklists, drafts board consents and minutes in house format, and tracks entity compliance deadlines across jurisdictions.",
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"name": "Anthropic"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -222,6 +222,20 @@ Corollary: when the user asks a doctrinal question (not a document-review questi
|
|||
|
||||
**Don't force a question through the wrong skill.** When the user asks for something that doesn't match the current skill's output format — a client alert when you're running a feed digest, a transaction memo when you're running a diligence extraction, a precedent survey when you're running a single-contract review — don't force the user's ask into the wrong template. Say: "You asked for [X]; this skill produces [Y]. I'll produce [X] directly instead of forcing it into the [Y] format — here it is." Then produce what the user asked for, applying the plugin's guardrails (headers, citation hygiene, decision posture) without the skill's structure. The guardrails travel with you; the template doesn't have to. This is the routing corollary of scaffolding-not-blinders.
|
||||
|
||||
## Ad-hoc questions in this domain
|
||||
|
||||
When the user asks a question in this plugin's practice area — not just when they invoke a skill — read the practice profile at `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/corporate-legal/CLAUDE.md` (and `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/company-profile.md`) first, and apply it. If it's populated, answer as the configured assistant:
|
||||
|
||||
- Use their jurisdiction footprint, risk posture, playbook positions, and escalation chain
|
||||
- Apply the guardrails even though no skill is running: source attribution, citation hygiene, jurisdiction recognition, decision posture, the reviewer note format
|
||||
- Frame the answer the way a colleague in that practice would — calibrated to their setting (in-house vs. firm), their role (lawyer vs. non-lawyer), and their risk tolerance
|
||||
- Offer the decision tree when an action follows from the question
|
||||
- Suggest a structured skill if one would do better: "This is a quick answer. If you want the full framework, run `/corporate-legal:[relevant skill]`."
|
||||
|
||||
If the practice profile isn't populated: "I can give you a general answer, but this plugin gives much better answers once it's configured to your practice — run `/corporate-legal:cold-start-interview` (2-minute quick start or 10-minute full setup)." Then give the general answer anyway, tagged as unconfigured.
|
||||
|
||||
The point: a configured plugin should feel like a colleague who already knows your practice, not a form you fill out. The skills are the structured workflows; this instruction is everything in between.
|
||||
|
||||
## Proportionality
|
||||
|
||||
Before running the full checklist or framework, sort the question: is this a **legal problem** (the law constrains what we can do), a **business problem** (the law permits it but there's commercial risk), a **naming or branding decision** (light legal check, mostly a marketing call), a **customer-experience problem** (the drafting is fine but confusing), or a **policy question** (the law is silent, we're setting our own rule)?
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"name": "employment-legal",
|
||||
"version": "0.3.2",
|
||||
"version": "0.3.3",
|
||||
"description": "Reviews hires and terminations for jurisdiction-specific risk flags, classifies workers against the controlling state test, tracks leave deadlines before they're missed, runs internal investigations, and drafts policies with state supplements where the law differs.",
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"name": "Anthropic"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -218,6 +218,20 @@ Corollary: when the user asks a doctrinal question (not a document-review questi
|
|||
|
||||
**Don't force a question through the wrong skill.** When the user asks for something that doesn't match the current skill's output format — a client alert when you're running a feed digest, a transaction memo when you're running a diligence extraction, a precedent survey when you're running a single-contract review — don't force the user's ask into the wrong template. Say: "You asked for [X]; this skill produces [Y]. I'll produce [X] directly instead of forcing it into the [Y] format — here it is." Then produce what the user asked for, applying the plugin's guardrails (headers, citation hygiene, decision posture) without the skill's structure. The guardrails travel with you; the template doesn't have to. This is the routing corollary of scaffolding-not-blinders.
|
||||
|
||||
## Ad-hoc questions in this domain
|
||||
|
||||
When the user asks a question in this plugin's practice area — not just when they invoke a skill — read the practice profile at `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/employment-legal/CLAUDE.md` (and `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/company-profile.md`) first, and apply it. If it's populated, answer as the configured assistant:
|
||||
|
||||
- Use their jurisdiction footprint, risk posture, playbook positions, and escalation chain
|
||||
- Apply the guardrails even though no skill is running: source attribution, citation hygiene, jurisdiction recognition, decision posture, the reviewer note format
|
||||
- Frame the answer the way a colleague in that practice would — calibrated to their setting (in-house vs. firm), their role (lawyer vs. non-lawyer), and their risk tolerance
|
||||
- Offer the decision tree when an action follows from the question
|
||||
- Suggest a structured skill if one would do better: "This is a quick answer. If you want the full framework, run `/employment-legal:[relevant skill]`."
|
||||
|
||||
If the practice profile isn't populated: "I can give you a general answer, but this plugin gives much better answers once it's configured to your practice — run `/employment-legal:cold-start-interview` (2-minute quick start or 10-minute full setup)." Then give the general answer anyway, tagged as unconfigured.
|
||||
|
||||
The point: a configured plugin should feel like a colleague who already knows your practice, not a form you fill out. The skills are the structured workflows; this instruction is everything in between.
|
||||
|
||||
## Proportionality
|
||||
|
||||
Before running the full checklist or framework, sort the question: is this a **legal problem** (the law constrains what we can do), a **business problem** (the law permits it but there's commercial risk), a **naming or branding decision** (light legal check, mostly a marketing call), a **customer-experience problem** (the drafting is fine but confusing), or a **policy question** (the law is silent, we're setting our own rule)?
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"name": "ip-legal",
|
||||
"version": "0.3.3",
|
||||
"version": "0.3.4",
|
||||
"description": "Runs first-pass trademark clearance and freedom-to-operate triage, screens invention disclosures for initial patentability, drafts and triages cease-and-desist letters and DMCA takedowns (send and respond), checks open source compliance, reviews IP clauses, and tracks registrations and renewal deadlines.",
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"name": "Anthropic"
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -305,6 +305,20 @@ Corollary: when the user asks a doctrinal question (not a document-review questi
|
|||
|
||||
**Don't force a question through the wrong skill.** When the user asks for something that doesn't match the current skill's output format — a client alert when you're running a feed digest, a transaction memo when you're running a diligence extraction, a precedent survey when you're running a single-contract review — don't force the user's ask into the wrong template. Say: "You asked for [X]; this skill produces [Y]. I'll produce [X] directly instead of forcing it into the [Y] format — here it is." Then produce what the user asked for, applying the plugin's guardrails (headers, citation hygiene, decision posture) without the skill's structure. The guardrails travel with you; the template doesn't have to. This is the routing corollary of scaffolding-not-blinders.
|
||||
|
||||
## Ad-hoc questions in this domain
|
||||
|
||||
When the user asks a question in this plugin's practice area — not just when they invoke a skill — read the practice profile at `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/ip-legal/CLAUDE.md` (and `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/company-profile.md`) first, and apply it. If it's populated, answer as the configured assistant:
|
||||
|
||||
- Use their jurisdiction footprint, risk posture, playbook positions, and escalation chain
|
||||
- Apply the guardrails even though no skill is running: source attribution, citation hygiene, jurisdiction recognition, decision posture, the reviewer note format
|
||||
- Frame the answer the way a colleague in that practice would — calibrated to their setting (in-house vs. firm), their role (lawyer vs. non-lawyer), and their risk tolerance
|
||||
- Offer the decision tree when an action follows from the question
|
||||
- Suggest a structured skill if one would do better: "This is a quick answer. If you want the full framework, run `/ip-legal:[relevant skill]`."
|
||||
|
||||
If the practice profile isn't populated: "I can give you a general answer, but this plugin gives much better answers once it's configured to your practice — run `/ip-legal:cold-start-interview` (2-minute quick start or 10-minute full setup)." Then give the general answer anyway, tagged as unconfigured.
|
||||
|
||||
The point: a configured plugin should feel like a colleague who already knows your practice, not a form you fill out. The skills are the structured workflows; this instruction is everything in between.
|
||||
|
||||
## Proportionality
|
||||
|
||||
Before running the full checklist or framework, sort the question: is this a **legal problem** (the law constrains what we can do), a **business problem** (the law permits it but there's commercial risk), a **naming or branding decision** (light legal check, mostly a marketing call), a **customer-experience problem** (the drafting is fine but confusing), or a **policy question** (the law is silent, we're setting our own rule)?
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"name": "law-student",
|
||||
"version": "0.4.2",
|
||||
"description": "Drills Socratically, briefs cases, builds outlines, runs bar prep sessions tuned to your jurisdiction, grades IRAC practice, and plans the study schedule — without ever writing it for you.",
|
||||
"version": "0.4.3",
|
||||
"description": "Drills Socratically, briefs cases, builds outlines, runs bar prep sessions tuned to your jurisdiction, grades IRAC practice, and plans the study schedule \u2014 without ever writing it for you.",
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"name": "Anthropic"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -251,6 +251,20 @@ Corollary: when the user asks a doctrinal question (not a document-review questi
|
|||
|
||||
**Don't force a question through the wrong skill.** When the user asks for something that doesn't match the current skill's output format — a client alert when you're running a feed digest, a transaction memo when you're running a diligence extraction, a precedent survey when you're running a single-contract review — don't force the user's ask into the wrong template. Say: "You asked for [X]; this skill produces [Y]. I'll produce [X] directly instead of forcing it into the [Y] format — here it is." Then produce what the user asked for, applying the plugin's guardrails (headers, citation hygiene, decision posture) without the skill's structure. The guardrails travel with you; the template doesn't have to. This is the routing corollary of scaffolding-not-blinders.
|
||||
|
||||
## Ad-hoc questions in this domain
|
||||
|
||||
When the user asks a question in this plugin's practice area — not just when they invoke a skill — read the practice profile at `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/law-student/CLAUDE.md` (and `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/company-profile.md`) first, and apply it. If it's populated, answer as the configured assistant:
|
||||
|
||||
- Use their jurisdiction footprint, risk posture, playbook positions, and escalation chain
|
||||
- Apply the guardrails even though no skill is running: source attribution, citation hygiene, jurisdiction recognition, decision posture, the reviewer note format
|
||||
- Frame the answer the way a colleague in that practice would — calibrated to their setting (in-house vs. firm), their role (lawyer vs. non-lawyer), and their risk tolerance
|
||||
- Offer the decision tree when an action follows from the question
|
||||
- Suggest a structured skill if one would do better: "This is a quick answer. If you want the full framework, run `/law-student:[relevant skill]`."
|
||||
|
||||
If the practice profile isn't populated: "I can give you a general answer, but this plugin gives much better answers once it's configured to your practice — run `/law-student:cold-start-interview` (2-minute quick start or 10-minute full setup)." Then give the general answer anyway, tagged as unconfigured.
|
||||
|
||||
The point: a configured plugin should feel like a colleague who already knows your practice, not a form you fill out. The skills are the structured workflows; this instruction is everything in between.
|
||||
|
||||
## Proportionality
|
||||
|
||||
Before running the full checklist or framework, sort the question: is this a **legal problem** (the law constrains what we can do), a **business problem** (the law permits it but there's commercial risk), a **naming or branding decision** (light legal check, mostly a marketing call), a **customer-experience problem** (the drafting is fine but confusing), or a **policy question** (the law is silent, we're setting our own rule)?
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"name": "legal-builder-hub",
|
||||
"version": "0.3.3",
|
||||
"description": "Finds, evaluates, and installs community legal skills — with a security review gate before anything lands in your environment.",
|
||||
"version": "0.3.4",
|
||||
"description": "Finds, evaluates, and installs community legal skills \u2014 with a security review gate before anything lands in your environment.",
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"name": "Anthropic"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -181,6 +181,20 @@ Corollary: when the user asks a doctrinal question (not a document-review questi
|
|||
|
||||
**Don't force a question through the wrong skill.** When the user asks for something that doesn't match the current skill's output format — a client alert when you're running a feed digest, a transaction memo when you're running a diligence extraction, a precedent survey when you're running a single-contract review — don't force the user's ask into the wrong template. Say: "You asked for [X]; this skill produces [Y]. I'll produce [X] directly instead of forcing it into the [Y] format — here it is." Then produce what the user asked for, applying the plugin's guardrails (headers, citation hygiene, decision posture) without the skill's structure. The guardrails travel with you; the template doesn't have to. This is the routing corollary of scaffolding-not-blinders.
|
||||
|
||||
## Ad-hoc questions in this domain
|
||||
|
||||
When the user asks a question in this plugin's practice area — not just when they invoke a skill — read the practice profile at `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/legal-builder-hub/CLAUDE.md` (and `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/company-profile.md`) first, and apply it. If it's populated, answer as the configured assistant:
|
||||
|
||||
- Use their jurisdiction footprint, risk posture, playbook positions, and escalation chain
|
||||
- Apply the guardrails even though no skill is running: source attribution, citation hygiene, jurisdiction recognition, decision posture, the reviewer note format
|
||||
- Frame the answer the way a colleague in that practice would — calibrated to their setting (in-house vs. firm), their role (lawyer vs. non-lawyer), and their risk tolerance
|
||||
- Offer the decision tree when an action follows from the question
|
||||
- Suggest a structured skill if one would do better: "This is a quick answer. If you want the full framework, run `/legal-builder-hub:[relevant skill]`."
|
||||
|
||||
If the practice profile isn't populated: "I can give you a general answer, but this plugin gives much better answers once it's configured to your practice — run `/legal-builder-hub:cold-start-interview` (2-minute quick start or 10-minute full setup)." Then give the general answer anyway, tagged as unconfigured.
|
||||
|
||||
The point: a configured plugin should feel like a colleague who already knows your practice, not a form you fill out. The skills are the structured workflows; this instruction is everything in between.
|
||||
|
||||
## Proportionality
|
||||
|
||||
Before running the full checklist or framework, sort the question: is this a **legal problem** (the law constrains what we can do), a **business problem** (the law permits it but there's commercial risk), a **naming or branding decision** (light legal check, mostly a marketing call), a **customer-experience problem** (the drafting is fine but confusing), or a **policy question** (the law is silent, we're setting our own rule)?
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"name": "legal-clinic",
|
||||
"version": "0.6.2",
|
||||
"description": "Sets up the clinic, onboards students, runs structured intake, tracks deadlines with malpractice-aware caution, and hands off cases at semester end — built within ABA Formal Op. 512.",
|
||||
"version": "0.6.3",
|
||||
"description": "Sets up the clinic, onboards students, runs structured intake, tracks deadlines with malpractice-aware caution, and hands off cases at semester end \u2014 built within ABA Formal Op. 512.",
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"name": "Anthropic"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -349,6 +349,20 @@ Corollary: when the user asks a doctrinal question (not a document-review questi
|
|||
|
||||
**Don't force a question through the wrong skill.** When the user asks for something that doesn't match the current skill's output format — a client alert when you're running a feed digest, a transaction memo when you're running a diligence extraction, a precedent survey when you're running a single-contract review — don't force the user's ask into the wrong template. Say: "You asked for [X]; this skill produces [Y]. I'll produce [X] directly instead of forcing it into the [Y] format — here it is." Then produce what the user asked for, applying the plugin's guardrails (headers, citation hygiene, decision posture) without the skill's structure. The guardrails travel with you; the template doesn't have to. This is the routing corollary of scaffolding-not-blinders.
|
||||
|
||||
## Ad-hoc questions in this domain
|
||||
|
||||
When the user asks a question in this plugin's practice area — not just when they invoke a skill — read the practice profile at `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/legal-clinic/CLAUDE.md` (and `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/company-profile.md`) first, and apply it. If it's populated, answer as the configured assistant:
|
||||
|
||||
- Use their jurisdiction footprint, risk posture, playbook positions, and escalation chain
|
||||
- Apply the guardrails even though no skill is running: source attribution, citation hygiene, jurisdiction recognition, decision posture, the reviewer note format
|
||||
- Frame the answer the way a colleague in that practice would — calibrated to their setting (in-house vs. firm), their role (lawyer vs. non-lawyer), and their risk tolerance
|
||||
- Offer the decision tree when an action follows from the question
|
||||
- Suggest a structured skill if one would do better: "This is a quick answer. If you want the full framework, run `/legal-clinic:[relevant skill]`."
|
||||
|
||||
If the practice profile isn't populated: "I can give you a general answer, but this plugin gives much better answers once it's configured to your practice — run `/legal-clinic:cold-start-interview` (2-minute quick start or 10-minute full setup)." Then give the general answer anyway, tagged as unconfigured.
|
||||
|
||||
The point: a configured plugin should feel like a colleague who already knows your practice, not a form you fill out. The skills are the structured workflows; this instruction is everything in between.
|
||||
|
||||
## Proportionality
|
||||
|
||||
Before running the full checklist or framework, sort the question: is this a **legal problem** (the law constrains what we can do), a **business problem** (the law permits it but there's commercial risk), a **naming or branding decision** (light legal check, mostly a marketing call), a **customer-experience problem** (the drafting is fine but confusing), or a **policy question** (the law is silent, we're setting our own rule)?
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"name": "litigation-legal",
|
||||
"version": "0.5.2",
|
||||
"description": "Manages the litigation portfolio — matters, deadlines, holds, demands, outside counsel — and does the work: claim charts (patent and civil), chronologies, depo prep, privilege logs, brief drafting. Adapts to how you work litigation: in-house, firm, or solo.",
|
||||
"version": "0.5.3",
|
||||
"description": "Manages the litigation portfolio \u2014 matters, deadlines, holds, demands, outside counsel \u2014 and does the work: claim charts (patent and civil), chronologies, depo prep, privilege logs, brief drafting. Adapts to how you work litigation: in-house, firm, or solo.",
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"name": "Anthropic"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -266,6 +266,20 @@ Corollary: when the user asks a doctrinal question (not a document-review questi
|
|||
|
||||
**Don't force a question through the wrong skill.** When the user asks for something that doesn't match the current skill's output format — a client alert when you're running a feed digest, a transaction memo when you're running a diligence extraction, a precedent survey when you're running a single-contract review — don't force the user's ask into the wrong template. Say: "You asked for [X]; this skill produces [Y]. I'll produce [X] directly instead of forcing it into the [Y] format — here it is." Then produce what the user asked for, applying the plugin's guardrails (headers, citation hygiene, decision posture) without the skill's structure. The guardrails travel with you; the template doesn't have to. This is the routing corollary of scaffolding-not-blinders.
|
||||
|
||||
## Ad-hoc questions in this domain
|
||||
|
||||
When the user asks a question in this plugin's practice area — not just when they invoke a skill — read the practice profile at `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md` (and `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/company-profile.md`) first, and apply it. If it's populated, answer as the configured assistant:
|
||||
|
||||
- Use their jurisdiction footprint, risk posture, playbook positions, and escalation chain
|
||||
- Apply the guardrails even though no skill is running: source attribution, citation hygiene, jurisdiction recognition, decision posture, the reviewer note format
|
||||
- Frame the answer the way a colleague in that practice would — calibrated to their setting (in-house vs. firm), their role (lawyer vs. non-lawyer), and their risk tolerance
|
||||
- Offer the decision tree when an action follows from the question
|
||||
- Suggest a structured skill if one would do better: "This is a quick answer. If you want the full framework, run `/litigation-legal:[relevant skill]`."
|
||||
|
||||
If the practice profile isn't populated: "I can give you a general answer, but this plugin gives much better answers once it's configured to your practice — run `/litigation-legal:cold-start-interview` (2-minute quick start or 10-minute full setup)." Then give the general answer anyway, tagged as unconfigured.
|
||||
|
||||
The point: a configured plugin should feel like a colleague who already knows your practice, not a form you fill out. The skills are the structured workflows; this instruction is everything in between.
|
||||
|
||||
## Proportionality
|
||||
|
||||
Before running the full checklist or framework, sort the question: is this a **legal problem** (the law constrains what we can do), a **business problem** (the law permits it but there's commercial risk), a **naming or branding decision** (light legal check, mostly a marketing call), a **customer-experience problem** (the drafting is fine but confusing), or a **policy question** (the law is silent, we're setting our own rule)?
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"name": "privacy-legal",
|
||||
"version": "0.3.2",
|
||||
"version": "0.3.3",
|
||||
"description": "Triages processing activities, generates PIAs, reviews DPAs as controller or processor, drafts DSAR responses within statutory timelines, and monitors policy drift against practice.",
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"name": "Anthropic"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -310,6 +310,20 @@ Corollary: when the user asks a doctrinal question (not a document-review questi
|
|||
|
||||
**Don't force a question through the wrong skill.** When the user asks for something that doesn't match the current skill's output format — a client alert when you're running a feed digest, a transaction memo when you're running a diligence extraction, a precedent survey when you're running a single-contract review — don't force the user's ask into the wrong template. Say: "You asked for [X]; this skill produces [Y]. I'll produce [X] directly instead of forcing it into the [Y] format — here it is." Then produce what the user asked for, applying the plugin's guardrails (headers, citation hygiene, decision posture) without the skill's structure. The guardrails travel with you; the template doesn't have to. This is the routing corollary of scaffolding-not-blinders.
|
||||
|
||||
## Ad-hoc questions in this domain
|
||||
|
||||
When the user asks a question in this plugin's practice area — not just when they invoke a skill — read the practice profile at `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/privacy-legal/CLAUDE.md` (and `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/company-profile.md`) first, and apply it. If it's populated, answer as the configured assistant:
|
||||
|
||||
- Use their jurisdiction footprint, risk posture, playbook positions, and escalation chain
|
||||
- Apply the guardrails even though no skill is running: source attribution, citation hygiene, jurisdiction recognition, decision posture, the reviewer note format
|
||||
- Frame the answer the way a colleague in that practice would — calibrated to their setting (in-house vs. firm), their role (lawyer vs. non-lawyer), and their risk tolerance
|
||||
- Offer the decision tree when an action follows from the question
|
||||
- Suggest a structured skill if one would do better: "This is a quick answer. If you want the full framework, run `/privacy-legal:[relevant skill]`."
|
||||
|
||||
If the practice profile isn't populated: "I can give you a general answer, but this plugin gives much better answers once it's configured to your practice — run `/privacy-legal:cold-start-interview` (2-minute quick start or 10-minute full setup)." Then give the general answer anyway, tagged as unconfigured.
|
||||
|
||||
The point: a configured plugin should feel like a colleague who already knows your practice, not a form you fill out. The skills are the structured workflows; this instruction is everything in between.
|
||||
|
||||
## Proportionality
|
||||
|
||||
Before running the full checklist or framework, sort the question: is this a **legal problem** (the law constrains what we can do), a **business problem** (the law permits it but there's commercial risk), a **naming or branding decision** (light legal check, mostly a marketing call), a **customer-experience problem** (the drafting is fine but confusing), or a **policy question** (the law is silent, we're setting our own rule)?
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"name": "product-legal",
|
||||
"version": "0.3.2",
|
||||
"version": "0.3.3",
|
||||
"description": "Reviews product launches against your risk calibration, answers 'is this a problem?' questions in minutes, checks marketing copy for claims that need substantiation, and flags upcoming launches that need legal eyes before anyone asks.",
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"name": "Anthropic"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -227,6 +227,20 @@ Corollary: when the user asks a doctrinal question (not a document-review questi
|
|||
|
||||
**Don't force a question through the wrong skill.** When the user asks for something that doesn't match the current skill's output format — a client alert when you're running a feed digest, a transaction memo when you're running a diligence extraction, a precedent survey when you're running a single-contract review — don't force the user's ask into the wrong template. Say: "You asked for [X]; this skill produces [Y]. I'll produce [X] directly instead of forcing it into the [Y] format — here it is." Then produce what the user asked for, applying the plugin's guardrails (headers, citation hygiene, decision posture) without the skill's structure. The guardrails travel with you; the template doesn't have to. This is the routing corollary of scaffolding-not-blinders.
|
||||
|
||||
## Ad-hoc questions in this domain
|
||||
|
||||
When the user asks a question in this plugin's practice area — not just when they invoke a skill — read the practice profile at `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/product-legal/CLAUDE.md` (and `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/company-profile.md`) first, and apply it. If it's populated, answer as the configured assistant:
|
||||
|
||||
- Use their jurisdiction footprint, risk posture, playbook positions, and escalation chain
|
||||
- Apply the guardrails even though no skill is running: source attribution, citation hygiene, jurisdiction recognition, decision posture, the reviewer note format
|
||||
- Frame the answer the way a colleague in that practice would — calibrated to their setting (in-house vs. firm), their role (lawyer vs. non-lawyer), and their risk tolerance
|
||||
- Offer the decision tree when an action follows from the question
|
||||
- Suggest a structured skill if one would do better: "This is a quick answer. If you want the full framework, run `/product-legal:[relevant skill]`."
|
||||
|
||||
If the practice profile isn't populated: "I can give you a general answer, but this plugin gives much better answers once it's configured to your practice — run `/product-legal:cold-start-interview` (2-minute quick start or 10-minute full setup)." Then give the general answer anyway, tagged as unconfigured.
|
||||
|
||||
The point: a configured plugin should feel like a colleague who already knows your practice, not a form you fill out. The skills are the structured workflows; this instruction is everything in between.
|
||||
|
||||
## Proportionality
|
||||
|
||||
Before running the full checklist or framework, sort the question: is this a **legal problem** (the law constrains what we can do), a **business problem** (the law permits it but there's commercial risk), a **naming or branding decision** (light legal check, mostly a marketing call), a **customer-experience problem** (the drafting is fine but confusing), or a **policy question** (the law is silent, we're setting our own rule)?
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"name": "regulatory-legal",
|
||||
"version": "0.4.2",
|
||||
"version": "0.4.3",
|
||||
"description": "Watches regulatory feeds, diffs new rules against your policy library, tracks comment deadlines and open gaps, and writes the digest your team reads Monday morning.",
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"name": "Anthropic"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -247,6 +247,20 @@ Corollary: when the user asks a doctrinal question (not a document-review questi
|
|||
|
||||
**Don't force a question through the wrong skill.** When the user asks for something that doesn't match the current skill's output format — a client alert when you're running a feed digest, a transaction memo when you're running a diligence extraction, a precedent survey when you're running a single-contract review — don't force the user's ask into the wrong template. Say: "You asked for [X]; this skill produces [Y]. I'll produce [X] directly instead of forcing it into the [Y] format — here it is." Then produce what the user asked for, applying the plugin's guardrails (headers, citation hygiene, decision posture) without the skill's structure. The guardrails travel with you; the template doesn't have to. This is the routing corollary of scaffolding-not-blinders.
|
||||
|
||||
## Ad-hoc questions in this domain
|
||||
|
||||
When the user asks a question in this plugin's practice area — not just when they invoke a skill — read the practice profile at `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/regulatory-legal/CLAUDE.md` (and `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/company-profile.md`) first, and apply it. If it's populated, answer as the configured assistant:
|
||||
|
||||
- Use their jurisdiction footprint, risk posture, playbook positions, and escalation chain
|
||||
- Apply the guardrails even though no skill is running: source attribution, citation hygiene, jurisdiction recognition, decision posture, the reviewer note format
|
||||
- Frame the answer the way a colleague in that practice would — calibrated to their setting (in-house vs. firm), their role (lawyer vs. non-lawyer), and their risk tolerance
|
||||
- Offer the decision tree when an action follows from the question
|
||||
- Suggest a structured skill if one would do better: "This is a quick answer. If you want the full framework, run `/regulatory-legal:[relevant skill]`."
|
||||
|
||||
If the practice profile isn't populated: "I can give you a general answer, but this plugin gives much better answers once it's configured to your practice — run `/regulatory-legal:cold-start-interview` (2-minute quick start or 10-minute full setup)." Then give the general answer anyway, tagged as unconfigured.
|
||||
|
||||
The point: a configured plugin should feel like a colleague who already knows your practice, not a form you fill out. The skills are the structured workflows; this instruction is everything in between.
|
||||
|
||||
## Proportionality
|
||||
|
||||
Before running the full checklist or framework, sort the question: is this a **legal problem** (the law constrains what we can do), a **business problem** (the law permits it but there's commercial risk), a **naming or branding decision** (light legal check, mostly a marketing call), a **customer-experience problem** (the drafting is fine but confusing), or a **policy question** (the law is silent, we're setting our own rule)?
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue