matter-intake-scoping

Matter scoping across the full pre-execution arc — organise client data into a structured brief, capture the agreed baseline, or reconstruct scope mid-flight. Use when making sense of client information before a proposal, scoping a new matter, running a kickoff, defining scope, mapping stakeholders, or inheriting a matter mid-flight. Trigger on: 'make sense of this', 'structure this for the proposal', 'scope this matter', 'new matter', 'kickoff', 'what are we doing', 'who are the stakeholders', 'what does success look like', 'matter setup', 'intake', 'I've inherited this matter', 'organise this client data'.

Quality

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

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 well-structured and highly actionable with concrete templates and clearly sequenced multi-mode workflows. Its main weaknesses are verbosity in the framing/coaching prose and a monolithic file whose referenced bundle files (references/, shared-knowledge/) do not actually exist.

Suggestions

Create the referenced bundle files (references/standing-assumptions.md, references/matter-type-profiles/[type].md) or remove the references, so progressive disclosure points to real one-level-deep material rather than absent paths.

Tighten the 'Operational knowledge — why intake fails' and repeated partner-ownership rationale to cut prose while keeping the templates and step sequences intact.

Consider moving the large inline output templates (e.g. the PRE-ENGAGEMENT CLIENT BRIEF and MATTER SCOPE SUMMARY formats) into reference files linked from a leaner SKILL.md overview.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Templates and formats earn their place, but the ~410-line body carries coaching prose that could be tightened (e.g. 'Operational knowledge — why intake fails' and repeated rationale on partner ownership); it is mostly efficient yet includes unnecessary explanation, so not the lean top anchor.	2 / 3
Actionability	Highly actionable for an instruction-only skill: copy-paste-ready templates (MATTER SCOPE SUMMARY, LPM INVOLVEMENT, PRE-ENGAGEMENT CLIENT BRIEF), a defined delta table, and exact label formats (Confirmed/Inferred/Unknown) give concrete executable guidance.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Multi-step processes are explicitly sequenced (Mode 1 Steps 1–7, Mode 4 methodology 1–5) with conditional checkpoints ('If no profile exists…', 'Where standing-assumptions.md is empty…') and checklists (brief section structure, OWNS/FACILITATES/MONITORS), meeting the clear-sequence-with-checkpoints anchor.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	References are clearly signaled by path (references/standing-assumptions.md, matter-type-profiles/[type].md, shared-knowledge/), but no bundle files exist on disk and the SKILL.md is a monolithic ~410-line file with templates inlined that could be split out, so it stops short of the well-split top anchor.	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 strong: it states concrete capabilities, includes an explicit 'Use when' plus 'Trigger on' list, and is voiced in third person. It cleanly satisfies all four dimensions with no notable fluff or over-claims.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names multiple concrete actions — 'organise client data into a structured brief, capture the agreed baseline, or reconstruct scope mid-flight' — matching the 'lists multiple specific concrete actions' anchor; not merely a domain label.	3 / 3
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what (organise data / capture baseline / reconstruct scope) and when via a 'Use when...' clause plus a 'Trigger on:' list, satisfying the top anchor.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	A broad set of natural phrases a user would actually say ('make sense of this', 'scope this matter', 'new matter', 'kickoff', 'I've inherited this matter', 'organise this client data') giving good coverage of common variations.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Occupies a clear legal matter-intake niche with distinct LPM-specific triggers unlikely to fire for unrelated skills; voice is third person (the first-person 'I've inherited' is a quoted user trigger, not skill self-reference).	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
referenced_paths_exist	Referenced path issues: 3 missing	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

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.