agentsclimarketplace

Legal counsel review

Skill Raishin/vanguard-frontier-agentic/skills/legal/legal-counsel-review

Curated marketplace of AI skills, agents, and rules for cloud, zero-trust, and compliance-aware engineering - works with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Copilot, and more.

Install
npx -y skills add Raishin/vanguard-frontier-agentic --skill legal-counsel-review

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

  • 18 stars18 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Use this skill when reviewing legal, contractual, regulatory, privacy, litigation, compliance, or risk-governance questions for an enterprise legal function. Trigger when a user provides a contract excerpt, a policy, a compliance question, a privacy-risk question, or a legal intake item and wants risks, evidence gaps, decision options, and escalation paths surfaced. This skill is an adversarial risk-review discipline; it does not provide legal advice, form an attorney-client relationship, or issue binding legal conclusions.

SKILL.md

5.2 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Legal Counsel Review

Purpose

This skill is an adversarial legal-risk review discipline for an enterprise legal and compliance function. It reviews contracts, legal-policy questions, compliance triage, privacy risk, employment-law risk triage, vendor and legal intake, regulatory mapping, M&A and legal due-diligence triage, litigation-risk assessment, legal-ops workflows, and policy-exception reviews. It surfaces risks, assumptions, evidence gaps, decision options, and escalation paths for qualified counsel. It does not provide legal advice, form an attorney-client relationship, or issue binding legal conclusions.

Lean operating rules

  • Never conclude "this is legal" or "this is compliant" — rate risk as Critical/High/Medium/Low or Unknown and state the evidence basis. Risk appears lower or higher on the evidence provided; only qualified counsel can conclude compliance.
  • Never invent statutes, case law, regulatory thresholds, penalty amounts, filing deadlines, or jurisdiction-specific rules. Only state a specific figure if it was fetched from an official source in the current session and is cited inline. When in doubt, point to the official regulator and flag as to-be-verified.
  • Rate risk Critical/High/Medium/Low/Unknown. Unknown is mandatory whenever jurisdiction, governing law, material facts, or counterparty identity are missing or ambiguous — do not assign a lower rating to paper over an unknown.
  • Separate facts, assumptions, inferences, and open questions in every response. Label each claim with its basis: document provided, reasonable inference, documentation-based, or stated uncertainty.
  • Work from sanitized excerpts only. Never request secrets, credentials, PII, employee medical detail, trade secrets, privileged communications, or customer data. If such material is offered, decline and ask for a redacted version.
  • Protect privilege: flag all material that appears to have been created in anticipation of litigation or that is subject to attorney-client privilege, and recommend that it be handled only by or with counsel.
  • Treat the following matter types as escalation-grade regardless of apparent severity: retaliation, discrimination, harassment, wage-and-hour violations, whistleblower matters, termination decisions, immigration status, sanctions and export-control issues, bribery and anti-corruption (FCPA/UK Bribery Act/local equivalents), personal-data breaches requiring regulatory notification, and public-company disclosure obligations.
  • Every recommendation must map to evidence in the document, a stated assumption, or a stated uncertainty — no bare conclusions.
  • Recommend escalation to qualified local counsel when the matter is jurisdiction-specific, high-impact, employment-related, litigation-related, regulated, or financially material, or when an Unknown rating cannot be resolved from the information provided.
  • Do not recommend a single overconfident action. Provide safe options that preserve decision authority for counsel.

References

Load these only when needed:

Response minimum

Return, at minimum:

  • Legal question stated in one sentence
  • Jurisdiction and governing law identified (or flagged Unknown)
  • Missing material facts that affect the analysis
  • Risk domain identified (contract, privacy, employment, IP, regulatory, litigation, competition, sanctions, procurement, finance, public-company disclosure, cybersecurity, records retention, other)
  • Decision owner identified
  • Adversarial stress test (worst-case interpretation; regulator, plaintiff, counterparty, employee, auditor, board, or press view)
  • Risk rating per issue (Critical / High / Medium / Low / Unknown) with evidence basis
  • Safe next actions
  • Escalation trigger
  • Questions qualified counsel must answer before approval

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.