contract-review

Contract review skill that adds comment-based issue annotations without changing original text. Enforces a three-layer review (basic, business, legal), writes structured comments (issue type, risk reason, revision suggestion) with risk level encoded via reviewer name, and generates a contract summary, consolidated opinion, and Mermaid business flowchart (with rendered image). Output language must follow the contract’s language.

Quality

66%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

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

Quality

Content

57%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.

Progressive disclosure is excellent — the body is a clean overview pointing to a real, well-organized reference set. The main weaknesses are a missing validation checkpoint in the workflow (capped at 3) and a duplicated, inconsistent workflow statement plus a heading typo.

Suggestions

Insert an explicit validation step into the main workflow (e.g. run scripts/ooxml/validate.py before repacking) and a verify-comments feedback loop, which would lift workflow_clarity above the cap.

Remove the duplicate 'Core workflow' line under Technical Notes (or reconcile its ordering with the 8-step list) and fix the stray 'li## Technical Notes' heading typo.

Add one or two concrete script-invocation commands inline (e.g. how to run the unpack/pack scripts) so the body is directly executable, not only via references.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient and overview-oriented, but the workflow is stated twice (an 8-step list and a 6-step 'Core workflow' with differing order) and a stray 'li## Technical Notes' typo adds noise, so it could be tightened.	3 / 5
Actionability	A copy-paste-ready comment example and concrete output file names give actionable guidance, but the body itself contains no executable commands or script invocations — those are deferred to references — leaving a key execution detail gap.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Steps are sequenced, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints in the main workflow despite XML/document manipulation and repacking; the scoring notes cap such skills at 3, and the two inconsistent workflow orderings add ambiguity.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is a clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references to language.md, checklist.md, summary.md, opinion.md, flowchart.md, technical.md, and examples.md, all of which are real bundle files, making navigation easy.	5 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Description

75%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.

The description is specific, comprehensive, and clearly niche-distinguished, but it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which caps its completeness. Adding a concrete usage-trigger sentence would lift the weakest dimension.

Suggestions

Append an explicit 'Use when reviewing, auditing, or annotating contracts (.docx)' trigger clause to satisfy the 'when should Claude use it' requirement.

Add the .docx file extension and common synonyms ('analyze contract', 'redline contract') to broaden natural trigger-term coverage.

Keep the existing concrete action list intact when adding the trigger — do not pad with further abstractions.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description lists multiple concrete actions — 'adds comment-based issue annotations', 'Enforces a three-layer review (basic, business, legal)', 'writes structured comments (issue type, risk reason, revision suggestion)', and 'generates a contract summary, consolidated opinion, and Mermaid business flowchart' — matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor.	5 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is clear and detailed, but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which per the judging guidelines caps completeness at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural terms like 'contract review', 'contract summary', 'consolidated opinion', and 'business flowchart' are present, but common variations/synonyms and the .docx file extension are missing, so it sits above the midpoint rather than at full coverage.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Contract review with a three-layer model and structured comment/risk encoding is a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal overlap risk with other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 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: 36319c3

Reviewed: 1 day 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.