client-intake

Structured intake — practice-area templates, cross-area issue spotting, conflict flags, and triage classification. Produces a formatted case summary the student analyzes and the professor reviews. Does NOT decide case acceptance. Use when starting a new client intake, running an intake interview, or writing up a new client's situation.

Quality

88%

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

Quality

Content

77%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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

Highly actionable with a clear, checkpointed workflow and concrete templates. The main gaps are some motivational padding that hurts conciseness and inline per-area content with a stub reference bundle that limits progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Tighten the 'Purpose' section and conversational asides — drop the 45-minute bottleneck narrative and 'the client may not know' framing, keeping only what guides the action.

Move the per-practice-area intake question sets out of the SKILL.md body into references/intake-templates/<area>.md and keep only routing + a pointer inline, so the overview stays lean and progressive disclosure reaches one level deep.

Populate references/intake-templates/immigration.md, housing.md, family.md, consumer.md so the referenced bundle is real content rather than a README stub.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly efficient and high-signal, but the 'Purpose' section and conversational asides ('The client may not know — they know their problem, not the legal category') motivate context Claude largely already knows and could be tightened.	2 / 3
Actionability	Fully executable: per-practice-area question lists, a copy-paste-ready /legal-clinic:deadlines --add block with every field pre-populated, cross-area and triage tables, and a complete markdown output template.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A clear 7-step sequence with explicit checkpoints — verification prompts, provenance tags, VERIFY markers, and 'don't fabricate a deadline' guidance — well beyond the anchor-2 'steps listed but checkpoints missing' level.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	references/intake-templates/ is referenced one level deep and the README exists, but per-area template content is largely inline and the referenced bundle is only a stub README, so content that should be separate is inline.	2 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Description

100%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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, third-person description that concretely lists capabilities, provides natural trigger terms, answers both what and when, and scopes its niche with an explicit 'does NOT' clause. No significant weaknesses.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names multiple concrete capabilities — 'practice-area templates, cross-area issue spotting, conflict flags, and triage classification' — in third person ('Produces', 'Does NOT decide'), matching the 'lists multiple specific concrete actions' anchor.	3 / 3
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what ('Structured intake... Produces a formatted case summary') and when ('Use when starting a new client intake...'), matching the 'clearly answers both what AND when' anchor rather than capping at 2.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	'Use when starting a new client intake, running an intake interview, or writing up a new client's situation' covers natural user phrasings users would actually say, satisfying the good-coverage anchor.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'Does NOT decide case acceptance' plus intake-specific triggers carve a clear niche unlikely to conflict with other skills.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 12 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
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: anthropics/claude-for-legal
Path: legal-clinic/skills/client-intake/SKILL.md
Commit: 4a6c651

Reviewed: 6 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.