Name: gc-review
Rating: 64 (1 reviews)
Author: alirezarezvani

gc-review

/cs:gc-review <plan> — General Counsel interrogation of contracts, IP, regulatory, term sheets, and employment-law surface. Use when reviewing a term sheet before signing, redlining a customer MSA, or checking IP assignment and regulatory exposure on a new product.

Quality

76%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.gemini/skills/gc-review/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is gc-review in alirezarezvani/claude-skills

Quality

Content

65%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A well-structured, actionable command skill with a clear question framework and output template. It is held back by missing validation checkpoints in the workflow and external, non-bundle references that weaken progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Add explicit validation checkpoints to the workflow (e.g., 'Confirm contract value/term thresholds from When-to-Run before scoring risk', 'Verify counterparty and jurisdiction before finalizing the verdict') to lift workflow_clarity above 3.

Either co-locate the referenced scanner/analyzer scripts and references inside this skill's ./scripts and ./references with one-level-deep links, or remove the cross-repo ../../../ paths and describe the integration as a pointer rather than an in-bundle dependency.

Trim editorializing lines such as 'a single missed clause costs more than a year of engineering' and fold the not-legal-advice disclaimer into a single concise line to improve token efficiency.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Bullet-driven and largely efficient with minimal padding, though a few editorializing lines ('a single missed clause costs more than a year of engineering') and the disclaimer could be trimmed.	4 / 5
Actionability	Concrete six-question checklist, a complete output-format template with example table rows, a verdict schema, and executable Python tool invocations; minor gaps in showing how tool output feeds the verdict.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear four-step sequence (read → run six questions → top-3 issues → verdict) is present, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops (e.g., confirm counterparty scope before assigning risk levels).	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is reasonably sectioned, but referenced scripts/references live outside this skill bundle via deeply-relative cross-repo paths (../../../c-level-advisor/...) and no ./references, ./scripts, or ./assets files exist, so references are not clearly signaled as one-level-deep bundle content.	3 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Description

87%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong, well-targeted description that explicitly covers both capability and trigger conditions with natural, domain-specific phrasing. Minor room to add more discrete action verbs and synonym variants to reach full specificity and trigger coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (contracts, IP, regulatory, term sheets, employment law) and a concrete action ('interrogation/forcing questions') across several specific surfaces, but does not enumerate a list of multiple distinct actions like the score-5 anchor.	4 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what (GC interrogation of contracts/IP/regulatory/term sheets/employment-law surface) and when ('Use when reviewing a term sheet before signing, redlining a customer MSA, or checking IP assignment and regulatory exposure on a new product') with concrete trigger phrases.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural phrases a user would say ('reviewing a term sheet before signing', 'redlining a customer MSA', 'checking IP assignment and regulatory exposure'), with good but not exhaustive synonym/variation coverage.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Occupies a clear General Counsel / legal niche with distinct triggers (term sheets, MSAs, IP assignment, regulatory exposure) unlikely to collide with adjacent CISO/CFO review skills.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
relative_links	Relative link issues: 2 suspicious	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: alirezarezvani/claude-skills
Path: .gemini/skills/gc-review/SKILL.md
Commit: 19392f7

Reviewed: ~7 hours ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.