diff --git a/ai-governance-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json b/ai-governance-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json index 3d3cc26..6a28758 100644 --- a/ai-governance-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +++ b/ai-governance-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json @@ -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" } -} +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/ai-governance-legal/CLAUDE.md b/ai-governance-legal/CLAUDE.md index 289371b..cc1e9b3 100644 --- a/ai-governance-legal/CLAUDE.md +++ b/ai-governance-legal/CLAUDE.md @@ -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)? diff --git a/commercial-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json b/commercial-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json index aa4aac4..b5119df 100644 --- a/commercial-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +++ b/commercial-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json @@ -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" } -} +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md b/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md index 8bdb718..f8db2c5 100644 --- a/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md +++ b/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md @@ -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)? diff --git a/corporate-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json b/corporate-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json index 0adb6d2..850f8a5 100644 --- a/corporate-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +++ b/corporate-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json @@ -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" } -} +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/corporate-legal/CLAUDE.md b/corporate-legal/CLAUDE.md index 3def525..6e1d2ec 100644 --- a/corporate-legal/CLAUDE.md +++ b/corporate-legal/CLAUDE.md @@ -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)? diff --git a/employment-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json b/employment-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json index 2709ed2..dd32608 100644 --- a/employment-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +++ b/employment-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json @@ -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" } -} +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/employment-legal/CLAUDE.md b/employment-legal/CLAUDE.md index 11d17c5..dbc7888 100644 --- a/employment-legal/CLAUDE.md +++ b/employment-legal/CLAUDE.md @@ -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)? diff --git a/ip-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json b/ip-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json index de55767..fc9ca9d 100644 --- a/ip-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +++ b/ip-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json @@ -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" diff --git a/ip-legal/CLAUDE.md b/ip-legal/CLAUDE.md index d6dc5aa..34bce5c 100644 --- a/ip-legal/CLAUDE.md +++ b/ip-legal/CLAUDE.md @@ -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)? diff --git a/law-student/.claude-plugin/plugin.json b/law-student/.claude-plugin/plugin.json index 5201c16..b857caf 100644 --- a/law-student/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +++ b/law-student/.claude-plugin/plugin.json @@ -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" } -} +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/law-student/CLAUDE.md b/law-student/CLAUDE.md index 79fd949..951c8ef 100644 --- a/law-student/CLAUDE.md +++ b/law-student/CLAUDE.md @@ -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)? diff --git a/legal-builder-hub/.claude-plugin/plugin.json b/legal-builder-hub/.claude-plugin/plugin.json index 6ab9559..f7062e9 100644 --- a/legal-builder-hub/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +++ b/legal-builder-hub/.claude-plugin/plugin.json @@ -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" } -} +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/legal-builder-hub/CLAUDE.md b/legal-builder-hub/CLAUDE.md index 16f0059..2aca6b4 100644 --- a/legal-builder-hub/CLAUDE.md +++ b/legal-builder-hub/CLAUDE.md @@ -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)? diff --git a/legal-clinic/.claude-plugin/plugin.json b/legal-clinic/.claude-plugin/plugin.json index 96b8091..5c2b76c 100644 --- a/legal-clinic/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +++ b/legal-clinic/.claude-plugin/plugin.json @@ -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" } -} +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/legal-clinic/CLAUDE.md b/legal-clinic/CLAUDE.md index afee855..a2d315f 100644 --- a/legal-clinic/CLAUDE.md +++ b/legal-clinic/CLAUDE.md @@ -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)? diff --git a/litigation-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json b/litigation-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json index 3d19675..428bf7c 100644 --- a/litigation-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +++ b/litigation-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json @@ -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" } -} +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md b/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md index 25e9163..b34909c 100644 --- a/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md +++ b/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md @@ -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)? diff --git a/privacy-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json b/privacy-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json index cbe0152..87fb19e 100644 --- a/privacy-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +++ b/privacy-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json @@ -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" } -} +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/privacy-legal/CLAUDE.md b/privacy-legal/CLAUDE.md index 3cdd851..dcd25d1 100644 --- a/privacy-legal/CLAUDE.md +++ b/privacy-legal/CLAUDE.md @@ -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)? diff --git a/product-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json b/product-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json index ca19d52..b14286f 100644 --- a/product-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +++ b/product-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json @@ -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" } -} +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/product-legal/CLAUDE.md b/product-legal/CLAUDE.md index 2fed66f..67c41da 100644 --- a/product-legal/CLAUDE.md +++ b/product-legal/CLAUDE.md @@ -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)? diff --git a/regulatory-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json b/regulatory-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json index d1843bf..0a90486 100644 --- a/regulatory-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json +++ b/regulatory-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json @@ -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" } -} +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/regulatory-legal/CLAUDE.md b/regulatory-legal/CLAUDE.md index 6d9eeda..340d510 100644 --- a/regulatory-legal/CLAUDE.md +++ b/regulatory-legal/CLAUDE.md @@ -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)?