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'.
85
81%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
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.
This is a strong, well-crafted skill description that clearly defines its domain (matter scoping in the pre-execution phase), lists concrete actions, and provides extensive trigger guidance with both a 'Use when' clause and an explicit 'Trigger on' list of natural user phrases. The description is specific to its niche while remaining accessible, and the rich set of trigger terms covers both formal and conversational language patterns users would naturally employ.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'organise client data into a structured brief', 'capture the agreed baseline', 'reconstruct scope mid-flight'. Also references specific sub-tasks like scoping, kickoff, stakeholder mapping, and matter setup. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (organise client data, capture baseline, reconstruct scope) and 'when' with an explicit 'Use when...' clause covering multiple scenarios, plus a dedicated 'Trigger on:' list with specific phrases. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural trigger terms users would actually say, including conversational phrases like 'make sense of this', 'what are we doing', 'I've inherited this matter', 'scope this matter', 'new matter', 'kickoff', and more formal terms like 'intake' and 'matter setup'. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Occupies a clear niche — matter scoping in the pre-execution arc of legal/professional services work. The domain-specific terminology ('matter', 'kickoff', 'stakeholders', 'intake', 'inherited this matter') makes it highly distinguishable from generic project management or document organization skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
62%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a highly actionable and well-structured skill with excellent workflow clarity across all four modes, concrete document templates, and thoughtful validation mechanisms like the four-level confidence system. Its primary weakness is extreme verbosity — the skill explains rationale, philosophy, and failure modes at length that significantly inflates token cost without proportional benefit. The content would benefit from splitting mode-specific templates into reference files and trimming explanatory prose.
Suggestions
Reduce explanatory prose throughout — sections like 'The problem this solves', 'Operational knowledge — why intake fails', and extensive rationale paragraphs (e.g., explaining why the confidence distinction matters) could be cut by 50-70% while preserving all actionable content.
Move the detailed document templates for each mode into separate reference files (e.g., references/mode-1-brief-template.md, references/mode-2-quick-intake-template.md) and keep only a concise summary of each mode's purpose, triggers, and steps in the main SKILL.md.
Convert narrative paragraphs into terse bullet points — e.g., the 'copy-paste failure mode to avoid' paragraph and the 'If the partner asks for a draft proposal' section contain good guidance buried in verbose prose.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is extremely verbose at ~400+ lines. It extensively explains why intake fails, the philosophy behind confidence labels, the rationale for LPM vs attorney boundaries, and operational context that Claude doesn't need explained at this length. Sections like 'The problem this solves' and 'Operational knowledge — why intake fails' are largely explanatory rather than instructional. Many paragraphs could be reduced to bullet points without losing actionable content. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides highly concrete, copy-paste-ready document templates with specific formats for scope summaries, delta tables, LPM involvement definitions, and pre-engagement briefs. Each mode has clear steps with specific outputs, labeling systems (Confirmed/Inferred/Unknown), and explicit formatting requirements. The guidance is specific enough to produce real deliverables. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Each mode has clearly sequenced steps with explicit validation checkpoints. Mode 1 has 7 numbered steps with clear dependencies (e.g., 'The brief comes first' before scope drafts). Mode 4's mid-matter recovery works backwards with a clear methodology. Cross-skill handoff points are explicit with trigger phrases. Confidence labeling serves as a built-in validation mechanism throughout. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references external files well (standing-assumptions.md, matter-type-profiles, shared-knowledge files) and has clear cross-skill handoff points. However, the SKILL.md itself is monolithic — all four modes with full templates and operational philosophy are inline rather than split into separate reference files. The document templates and mode-specific details could be in separate files with the main skill serving as an overview. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- legalopsconsulting/lpm-skills
- Commit
8f9093f
- 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.