status-report-drafter

Draft matter status reports from emails, call notes, and updates. Internal and client-facing formats, RAG logic, variance commentary, escalation flags. Use when asked to draft a status report, write a project update, summarise matter progress, prepare a client report, create a weekly or monthly update, convert emails into a status summary, or produce any kind of matter reporting. Also triggers when the user pastes email threads and asks what the status is, or needs to turn internal updates into client-facing reports. Also use when the user says things like "pull something together for the partner call", "I need to update the client on where we are", or "can you summarise what's happened this week".

Quality

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Quality

Content

85%

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 and well-structured, with a clear sequenced workflow, validation checklist, and well-organized one-level-deep references. The main weakness is conciseness: several policies (output format, M365 search rules) are restated across multiple sections and could be consolidated.

Suggestions

Consolidate the .docx output-format policy into a single block; the rule, its override conditions, and the user-preference caveat are currently spread across three overlapping paragraphs in the Output format section.

Dedupe the M365 connected-mode and search-query guidance: the shortest-keyword rule and SharePoint-vs-Teams distinction each appear in both the M365 connected mode section and the Workflow Step 1 / Memory Store sections.

Tighten the Memory Store section, which restates the same matter-keyword search rule a third time; the read/precedence/write mechanics could be expressed more compactly.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body adds genuine LPM methodology Claude would not already know and avoids explaining known concepts, but it repeats itself: the .docx output-format policy is restated across three overlapping paragraphs, and the M365/connected-mode guidance and search-query rules appear in multiple sections. It is mostly efficient but could be tightened, matching anchor 2 rather than the lean anchor 3.	2 / 3
Actionability	As an instruction-only skill it provides concrete, copy-paste-ready guidance: a literal chase-email template, a stated escalation test ('If this goes wrong and the partner/client didn't know about it...'), the shortest-keyword search format ('Meridian, not Project Meridian'), and a full Proposed Memory Update block template. This goes beyond abstract direction to specific, executable instruction.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A clear six-step sequence is given with an identifier gate and a connected-source check that 'runs before anything else', and Step 6 is an explicit quality-check checklist acting as a validation checkpoint before the draft is presented. This matches the anchor-3 clear sequence with explicit validation steps and a checklist.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	SKILL.md is an overview pointing to two one-level-deep, well-signaled references — references/output-templates.md (Sections 1–5) and references/rag-methodology.md — both of which exist with the cited sections present. Detailed templates and full RAG judgment calls are correctly split out into those files rather than inlined.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 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 across all four dimensions: it states concrete capabilities, gives rich natural-language triggers, answers both what and when explicitly, and occupies a distinct niche. All guidance is in third person with no first/second-person phrasing.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple specific concrete actions — drafting reports, RAG logic, variance commentary, escalation flags, internal/client formats, email-to-summary conversion — rather than vague domain mentions. It is comprehensive rather than naming only some actions, so it sits above anchor 2.	3 / 3
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what (report formats, RAG, variance commentary, escalation flags) and when, via an explicit 'Use when...' clause and several trigger scenarios. The 'when' is explicit, not merely implied, so it clears the anchor-2 cap.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Covers natural phrasings a user would actually say — 'draft a status report', 'write a project update', 'summarise matter progress', 'prepare a client report', 'what's the status', plus direct quotes like 'pull something together for the partner call'. Coverage is broad with common variations, beyond the 'some relevant keywords' of anchor 2.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Occupies a clear niche — legal/LPM matter status reporting with RAG logic and escalation — with triggers specific to matter reporting, making it unlikely to fire for the wrong skill. It is more specific than the 'somewhat specific but could overlap' anchor 2.	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
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	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.