contract-review

律师助理与法律助手、项目管理专家在审核合同、排查条款风险时必备。自动执行基础、商业、法律三层审查，仅添加批注不改原文，一键生成带批注合同、审查摘要、综合意见及业务流程图，让合同风控与业务梳理更高效专业。

2.11x

Quality

70%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

89%

2.11x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/legal-assistant-skills-main/contract-review/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

72%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 overview with excellent progressive disclosure into a verified, one-level-deep bundle, and concrete examples for comments and outputs. The main gap is workflow validation: the XML manipulation workflow lacks an explicit validate-before-repack checkpoint, and the duplicated workflow section and a heading typo slightly hurt conciseness.

Suggestions

Insert an explicit validation step into the workflow (e.g. between comment insertion and repack: run scripts/ooxml/validate.py on the unpacked directory, fix and re-run if it fails, only repack when valid) to create a real feedback loop.

Remove the duplicated 'Core workflow' list in Technical Notes and fix the 'li## Technical Notes' heading typo.

Name the concrete unpack/repack entry points (scripts/ooxml/unpack.py, pack.py) inline in the Workflow section so each step is directly executable from the body.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is efficient and assumes competence (terse checklists, no explanation of OOXML basics), but the workflow sequence is stated twice (8-step 'Workflow' and again as 'Core workflow' in Technical Notes), and the stray 'li' typo in 'li## Technical Notes' shows minor untrimmed content — efficient with minor excess, matching the 4 anchor.	4 / 5
Actionability	Concrete guidance dominates: a fully formatted comment example, exact output file names for both languages, executable pointers ('run doc.verify_comments() and re-save', references/technical.md with real XML snippets, scripts/workflow.py exercised in examples.md). Minor gaps — no inline command lines for unpack/repack in the body itself — place it at 4 rather than 5.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The 8-step sequence is clearly ordered, but no explicit validation checkpoint appears in the workflow itself despite XML/docx manipulation (unpack → inject comments → repack); recovery guidance exists only in Troubleshooting and the bundle's validate.py is never wired into the sequence. Per the rubric's cap for document-manipulation workflows lacking feedback loops, this stays at 3 even though sequencing is good.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is a genuine overview with bold, well-signaled references (language.md, checklist.md, summary.md, opinion.md, flowchart.md, technical.md, examples.md) — all verified to exist, one level deep, with no nested references — and implementation bulk is correctly placed in references/ and scripts/. This matches the 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references' anchor.	5 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

67%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 fairly strong description that clearly conveys what the skill does with concrete, comprehensive capabilities. Its main weaknesses are the marketing-style framing ('必备', '一键', '更高效专业'), the absence of explicit 'Use when…' trigger guidance, and no English trigger terms despite the skill being bilingual.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when the user asks to review/audit a contract, check contract terms for risk, or add review comments to a .docx contract' — both to satisfy the 'when' requirement and to supply missing keywords.

Include English trigger terms and file-format keywords (contract review, .docx, Word) since the skill handles English contracts too.

Remove promotional fluff such as '一键' and '让合同风控与业务梳理更高效专业' and use third-person descriptions of concrete actions instead.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description lists several concrete actions ('自动执行基础、商业、法律三层审查，仅添加批注不改原文，一键生成带批注合同、审查摘要、综合意见及业务流程图') with nearly comprehensive coverage, but the promotional tail ('一键…让合同风控与业务梳理更高效专业') is vague fluff rather than a capability, keeping it below the 5 anchor.	4 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is explicit and detailed (three-layer review, comments-only, four named outputs), and a 'when' is present via '在审核合同、排查条款风险时', but it is framed as an audience endorsement ('律师助理…项目管理专家…必备') rather than explicit 'Use when…' trigger guidance, so it could be more explicit — matching the 4 anchor, not 5.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural Chinese phrases like '审核合同' and '排查条款风险' are present, but common variations are missing: no English trigger terms at all (despite the skill handling English contracts), and no mention of '合同审查', '.docx', or 'Word' as synonyms, matching the 'relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The comments-only, three-layer contract-review niche with four specific deliverables is mostly distinct, with only minor overlap risk against generic Word/docx editing or summarization skills — the 4 anchor fits better than 5 because triggers like '审查/批注' could also fire for general document-review skills.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: anbeime/skill
Path: skills/legal-assistant-skills-main/contract-review/SKILL.md
Commit: 0ca4f26

Reviewed: 2 days 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.