matter-plan-builder

Convert agreed scope into a structured matter plan — phases, workstreams, milestones, dependencies, owner assignments, and matter setup decisions. Use when planning a new matter, running a kickoff, building a workstream plan, structuring phases, setting up task codes, or producing a plan to drive status reporting. Trigger on: 'build a plan', 'matter plan', 'project plan', 'what are the phases', 'workstream plan', 'how do we sequence this', 'who owns what', 'task codes', 'matter setup', 'workstream plan', 'matter plan', 'rolling wave', 'plan the next phase', 'what comes first', 'kickoff agenda'.

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 an actionable, well-sequenced legal matter-planning methodology with concrete formats and explicit checkpoints. Its weaknesses are verbosity/repetition in the rationale prose and a monolithic structure that keeps reference material inline rather than splitting it into separate files.

Suggestions

Tighten or relocate the 'Common Planning Failures' and Mode 5 rationale prose — condense the repeated 'lawyers don't update plans' argument to a few lines since the operational rule is already stated.

Split the large reference tables (Standard Plan Fields, Domain Knowledge phase patterns, Communication Rhythm) into reference files (e.g. plan-fields.md, phase-patterns.md) linked one level deep, keeping SKILL.md as an overview.

Dedupe the trigger list and remove repeated restatements of the same operating rule across sections to reduce token cost.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The guidance is mostly efficient and high-signal, but lengthy rhetorical passages (e.g. the extended 'lawyers do not update plans' rationale and Mode 5 justification restated across sections) and repeated emphasis could be tightened without losing clarity.	2 / 3
Actionability	Highly concrete, copy-paste-ready instruction: exact task-table column order, fixed naming conventions (88234-T-001), FS/FF/SS/SF tags, full field schemas, identifier block format, and a required-output checklist.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A clearly sequenced six-step process with explicit validation gates ('Flag scope gaps before proceeding', 'confirm owner names ... do not proceed until the user has responded') and a verification checklist for the final plan output.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are well-organized with clear headers, but the file is a single ~350-line monolith with large reference material (phase patterns, standard plan field tables, communication cadence) inline and no split reference files, despite no bundle files existing to absorb it.	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 concrete, uses correct third-person voice, and pairs a clear capability statement with explicit trigger phrases covering both the 'what' and the 'when'. It is a strong, well-targeted description with only a minor redundancy in its trigger list.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions: 'phases, workstreams, milestones, dependencies, owner assignments, and matter setup decisions' — a comprehensive enumeration of the skill's outputs rather than vague language.	3 / 3
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what (the structured matter plan outputs) and when via a 'Use when ...' clause plus an explicit 'Trigger on:' list of phrases.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Natural phrases a user would say ('build a plan', 'who owns what', 'what are the phases', 'task codes', 'kickoff agenda') with broad coverage; minor duplicate triggers ('workstream plan', 'matter plan' appear twice) do not undermine quality.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The legal/LPM matter-planning niche is clearly defined by distinctive triggers (matter setup, workstream plan, rolling wave, task codes) unlikely to match an unrelated skill.	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.