counter-proposal-generator

Generates specific counter-proposals for every unfavorable clause, with replacement language, negotiation talking points, and a ready-to-send email template

Quality

66%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

High

Do not use without reviewing

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/legal-negotiate/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

65%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The skill is highly actionable with a clear step sequence and concrete examples, but the monolithic inline output template and absence of validation checkpoints limit conciseness, workflow clarity, and progressive disclosure to 2.

Suggestions

Move the large output-document and email templates into a reference file (e.g. references/output-template.md) and reference it from the body to improve progressive disclosure and conciseness.

Add an explicit validation/verification step (e.g. 'Confirm each replacement clause is legally coherent and self-contained before writing the file') to lift workflow clarity.

Tighten Step 6 by summarizing the output structure instead of reproducing the full template inline.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but the large inline output and email templates (~240 lines) could be tightened or moved to a reference, keeping it at the 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' level.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides fully concrete, copy-paste-ready guidance including a specific replacement-clause example (the aggregate-liability cap) and a complete email template, matching the top anchor for executable, specific instruction.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The six-step sequence is clearly listed, but there are no explicit validation or verification checkpoints (e.g. confirming replacement language is legally coherent before output), which per the guidelines caps workflow clarity at 2 for a file-writing workflow.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are clearly organized, but the entire output template and email template are inlined as a monolithic block rather than split into a reference file, fitting the 'some structure but content that should be separate is inline' anchor.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Description

67%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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 and clearly distinct, but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger and has only partial coverage of natural user keywords, capping completeness and trigger quality at 2.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when reviewing or negotiating a contract and the user wants to push back on unfavorable terms.'

Broaden trigger keywords to include common user phrasings like 'contract review', 'redline', 'renegotiate', or 'counter-offer'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions — 'counter-proposals', 'replacement language', 'negotiation talking points', and 'ready-to-send email template' — matching the top anchor for listing several specific concrete actions.	3 / 3
Completeness	The 'what' is clearly stated, but there is no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause; per the judging guidelines a missing explicit trigger caps completeness at 2 rather than 3.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Contains relevant terms like 'counter-proposals', 'unfavorable clause', and 'negotiation' but misses common user variations such as 'contract review', 'redline', or 'renegotiate', so coverage is partial rather than comprehensive.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The contract-negotiation counter-proposal niche is clearly distinct with specific triggers ('unfavorable clause', 'negotiation'), making conflict with other skills unlikely.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 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: zubair-trabzada/ai-legal-claude
Path: skills/legal-negotiate/SKILL.md
Commit: 19ece98

Reviewed: 12 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.