local-counsel-manager

End-to-end external local counsel lifecycle management for multi-jurisdiction legal matters. LC selection criteria and capability assessment, engagement setup and instruction design, performance monitoring and check-in cadence, scope enforcement, and relationship escalation. Use when selecting local counsel for a jurisdiction, designing LC instructions, managing the LC check-in rhythm, enforcing scope boundaries when LC signals overreach, or escalating a performance or relationship issue beyond the matter team. Trigger on: 'which LC should we use', 'LC instruction', 'brief the local counsel', 'LC hasn't responded', 'LC is going off scope', 'LC scope dispute', 'confirm scope with LC', 'LC check-in', 'LC is slow', 'monitor the LC network', 'LC engagement letter', 'LC selection', 'what should we tell the local counsel', 'LC onboarding', 'LC performance issue', 'LC relationship problem'.

Quality

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Advisory

Suggest reviewing before use

Quality

Content

77%

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 clear sequenced workflows and validation gates, but it is verbose through repetition and keeps all detail inline rather than offloading reusable templates to reference files. Tightening repeated output-produce directives and extracting letter skeletons to references would lift both conciseness and progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Consolidate the repeated 'produce the output, do not ask whether to produce it' directive into a single Output Format rule and reference it from each mode instead of restating it in Mode 2, Mode 3, Mode 4, and the Output Format section.

Extract the full instruction-letter skeleton (Mode 2) and scope-response skeleton (Mode 4) into files under references/ and link to them one level deep, reducing inline token weight while keeping the core skill as an overview.

Move the M365 Connected Mode and Domain Knowledge sections into a separate reference file, keeping only a brief pointer in SKILL.md, since they are situational rather than core to every invocation.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is dense and largely substantive, but sections repeat the same directives multiple times (e.g., 'Produce the output — do not ask whether to produce it', 'The letter is the output', 'Produce this letter immediately' recur across Mode 2, Mode 4, and Output Format), adding tokens without new information.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides concrete, copy-ready skeletons for the instruction letter, scope response letter, escalation emails, and named action tables, with explicit field-by-field structure and placeholder conventions — directly executable guidance.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Multi-step processes are explicitly sequenced with checkpoints: the input classification runs before mode selection, the identifier hard gate is a hard gate, and the Day 3/5/7/10 escalation path is a numbered sequence with owners and send-on dates.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Content is well-sectioned but entirely monolithic within SKILL.md — no bundle files exist in references/scripts/assets, and large reusable blocks (full letter skeletons, the M365 Connected Mode detail, domain-knowledge patterns) remain inline where a one-level reference could reduce core-skill load.	2 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Description

100%

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, and complete, covering both capability and explicit use-when guidance while staying within a distinct niche. It is on the verbose end, but the breadth is justified by a genuinely multi-mode workflow.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions across the LC lifecycle — selection criteria and capability assessment, engagement setup and instruction design, performance monitoring and check-in cadence, scope enforcement, and relationship escalation — rather than vague domain labels.	3 / 3
Completeness	Explicitly answers both 'what' (the lifecycle-management actions) and 'when' via a 'Use when' clause plus a 'Trigger on' list of explicit triggers, satisfying both halves of the dimension.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes a broad set of natural phrases a user would actually say ('which LC should we use', 'LC instruction', 'brief the local counsel', 'LC hasn't responded', 'LC is going off scope', 'LC check-in', 'LC is slow', 'LC engagement letter'), covering common variations.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Occupies a clear niche — external local counsel lifecycle on multi-jurisdiction matters — with distinctive LC-specific triggers unlikely to fire for adjacent skills like billing-cycle-manager or matter-intake-scoping, which it explicitly differentiates from.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 12 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: legalopsconsulting/lpm-skills
Commit: 178ed52

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.