missing-protections-finder

Identifies critical clauses and protections that should be in a contract but are missing, with urgency ratings and ready-to-insert language

Quality

72%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

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

Quality

Content

77%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 body is highly actionable with a clear, checklist-driven workflow, but it is token-heavy due to repeated output-template sections and keeps all reference-worthy material inline in one file. Splitting large reference material out and de-duplicating the template would improve both conciseness and progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Move the per-contract-type checklists and/or the full output template into reference files (e.g. CHECKLISTS.md, OUTPUT-TEMPLATE.md) referenced one level deep, keeping SKILL.md a lean overview.

Collapse the three near-duplicate CRITICAL/IMPORTANT/RECOMMENDED output sections into a single repeatable block with an urgency field to reduce token bloat.

Add a brief verification checkpoint (e.g. 'confirm the contract type before applying a checklist; recompute the Protection Coverage Score from the present/missing counts') to make the workflow's validation explicit.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The per-type checklists are genuinely useful domain content, but the three near-duplicate CRITICAL/IMPORTANT/RECOMMENDED output sections and the fully inline ~225-line body could be tightened, fitting the 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' anchor.	2 / 3
Actionability	Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready guidance: specific must-have checklists per contract type, a complete output template with defined fields, and a real clause-language example ('shall not exceed the total fees paid ... in the twelve (12) months preceding ...').	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	A clearly sequenced 5-step process (read → classify → check missing → check universal → generate) driven by explicit checklists (per-type must-haves and the universal protections table); the task is analysis, not destructive/batch, so no feedback-loop cap applies.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Well-organized into clear sections, but it is a monolithic ~225-line single file with no bundle references, and content that could be split (per-type checklists, full output template) is inlined — matching the 'some structure but content that should be separate is inline' anchor.	2 / 3
	Total	10 / 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 occupies a clear, distinctive niche, but it omits an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause and lacks common trigger-term variations, which caps completeness and trigger-term quality. Adding explicit usage triggers would lift the two weaker dimensions.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when reviewing a contract for missing clauses, auditing protections before signing, or checking an agreement for gaps.'

Broaden trigger terms to natural variations users would say — 'agreement', 'NDA', 'MSA', 'contract review', 'what protections am I missing' — alongside the existing 'contract', 'clauses', and 'protections'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain and multiple concrete actions: 'Identifies critical clauses and protections that should be in a contract but are missing', 'urgency ratings', and 'ready-to-insert language' — comparable to the multi-action anchor example.	3 / 3
Completeness	It clearly answers 'what' the skill does but has no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, so per the judging guidelines completeness is capped at 2.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant natural terms ('contract', 'clauses', 'protections') but lacks common variations a user might say such as 'agreement', 'NDA', 'MSA', or 'contract review', matching the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Targets a clear niche — missing protections/clauses in contracts — with distinct triggers, making it unlikely to fire for an unrelated skill.	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-missing/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.