CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

legal-writing

Structural feedback on a legal writing draft (memo, brief, paper, exam essay) — organization, analysis depth, clarity, citation form. NEVER rewrites the draft. Use when the user says "feedback on my memo", "read my draft", or "critique my brief".

72

Quality

88%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

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 a well-structured, highly actionable feedback skill with a clear sequenced workflow and explicit confidence discipline. Its main weakness is conciseness — the hard 'no rewriting' rule and its pedagogical rationale are repeated several times — and it stays monolithic rather than splitting detail into bundle files.

Suggestions

State the 'no rewriting' hard rule once (e.g., in Purpose) and reference it from Step 4 and 'What this skill does not do' instead of re-deriving the rationale each time; trim the motivational prose in 'Why the rule is strict'.

Consider moving the full feedback template and the tracker format into a references/ file (e.g., FEEDBACK_TEMPLATE.md) so SKILL.md stays a lean overview with one-level-deep, clearly signaled links.

Keep one canonical example-phrase policy rather than restating the 'labeled, sparingly, generic not substantive' guidance across Purpose, step 5, and the template note.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient and domain-specific, but the 'no rewriting' rule is restated four or more times (Purpose, 'Why the rule is strict', Step 4, 'What this skill does not do') and motivational prose ('the point of law school writing practice is the struggle') pads beyond what the model needs — the 'could be tightened' anchor, not the lean anchor 3.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides a copy-ready structured feedback template, concrete per-type section expectations (QP/BA/Facts/Discussion/Conclusion; TOA/Intro/SOF/Argument/Conclusion), an exact refusal script, and a tracker format — fully actionable for an instruction-only skill, satisfying the scoring note that absences of code are not penalized when guidance is concrete.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced 5-step workflow (read draft → identify type → structured feedback → handle rewrite request → track patterns) with an explicit VERIFY confidence-discipline checkpoint; this is not a destructive/batch operation, so the cap-at-2 rule does not apply.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The single SKILL.md is well-sectioned and its cross-skill pointers are clearly signaled, but there are no bundle files and the inline feedback template and tracker format make it a fairly long monolithic document exceeding the under-50-line simple-skill carve-out for a top score.

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 concise, concrete, and complete: it names the domain and several specific feedback dimensions, states the hard 'no rewriting' constraint, and gives explicit natural-language triggers for when to invoke it. It cleanly satisfies all four dimensions at the top of the scale.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete feedback actions — 'organization, analysis depth, clarity, citation form' on a named legal-writing domain — matching the 'lists multiple specific concrete actions' anchor rather than the partial anchor 2.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('Structural feedback on a legal writing draft...NEVER rewrites the draft') and when ('Use when the user says...'), satisfying the explicit-trigger anchor; not the 2 anchor which leaves 'when' only implied.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural user phrases ('feedback on my memo', 'read my draft', 'critique my brief') plus draft-type terms, giving good coverage of what users would actually say; not merely technical jargon.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear legal-writing-feedback niche with distinct triggers (memo/brief/paper/exam essay) that are unlikely to collide with other skills; far more specific than the 'works with document files' overlap anchor.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
anthropics/claude-for-legal
Reviewed

Table of Contents

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.