client-letter

Routine client correspondence from templates — appointment confirmations, document requests, brief "we filed it" updates. Plain language, required elements, supervision routing. NOT substantive advice. Use when a student needs to send routine correspondence, an appointment confirmation, a document request letter, or a brief status note to a client.

Quality

88%

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

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.

The body is highly actionable with complete templates and a clear, validated pre-send workflow, but it is somewhat verbose due to repeated scope/supervision statements and makes no use of progressive disclosure — all templates are inline with no reference files.

Suggestions

Deduplicate the scope and supervision-gate statements: state 'routine only, not substantive advice' and the supervision gate once, then reference that section elsewhere instead of restating.

Move the three full letter templates into a references/ file (e.g. references/templates.md) and keep SKILL.md as an overview pointing to them, improving progressive disclosure and token efficiency.

Remove the repeated load-context line (it appears both in the quick-start list and the 'Load context' section) — keep one.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly efficient and free of generic-concept padding, but the scope boundary ('routine only / not substantive advice') and the supervision gate are restated in three places (intro, 'Purpose', 'What this skill does NOT do', 'Before sending' + 'Supervision routing'), and the load-context line is duplicated — it could be tightened. Not a 3 because of this repetition; not a 1 because it never explains things Claude already knows.	2 / 3
Actionability	Three full, copy-paste-ready letter templates with concrete placeholders, a concrete sign-off block, an explicit pre-send checklist, and three named pedagogy postures with concrete behaviors — fully executable guidance.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Clear sequence (load context → pedagogy check → match type → plain-language check → output with label) plus an explicit 'Before sending' validation checklist (review protocol, strip internal labels, confirm sign-off rule) for this consequential action. Meets the 'explicit validation steps / checklists' anchor.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle/reference files exist; all content — including three full letter templates — lives inline in one ~155-line SKILL.md. It is well-sectioned, but nothing is split into one-level-deep reference files, so it sits at the 'structure present but content that could be separate is inline' anchor rather than the top one.	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.

The description is specific, trigger-rich, complete, and well-scoped with explicit use-when guidance and clear boundaries against substantive-advice skills. It is written in third person and avoids vague fluff.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names multiple concrete letter types — 'appointment confirmations, document requests, brief "we filed it" updates' — plus concrete required elements ('Plain language, required elements, supervision routing'), matching the 'lists multiple specific concrete actions' anchor.	3 / 3
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what ('Routine client correspondence from templates…') and when ('Use when a student needs to send…'), with an explicit trigger clause, matching the top anchor.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	The 'Use when a student needs to send routine correspondence, an appointment confirmation, a document request letter, or a brief status note' clause covers natural terms a user would say; not just jargon. It is below only in lacking a few colloquial variants, but coverage is strong.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Scoped to a clear niche (routine legal-clinic client correspondence) with an explicit boundary ('NOT substantive advice') and routing to /status client, making conflict with adjacent skills unlikely.	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-letter/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.