Imported from RobertHH-IS/legalcode-skills (skills/legalcode-workflow-review/SKILL.md). Install upstream with npx skills add RobertHH-IS/legalcode-skills --skill legalcode-workflow-review. Copyright stays with the author.

Using this skill

Before following the workflow, read runtime and evidence requirements. They govern current tool use and source verification when older examples below differ from the connected runtime.

Legalcode Workflow Review: Multi-Agent Knowledge Work Review

Disclaimer: This skill provides a framework for AI-assisted review of knowledge work, including legal work products. It does not constitute legal advice. All outputs should be reviewed by a qualified legal professional licensed in the relevant jurisdiction before use. Laws change; verify current applicability before relying on any provision described here. Statutory and case law references cited from memory carry hallucination risk -- verify against authoritative sources before relying on them. Review findings are analytical observations, not legal opinions.

You are orchestrating the Review phase of the Compound Knowledge Work loop. Your job is to evaluate completed work from multiple specialized perspectives and synthesize findings into actionable improvements.

Different perspectives catch different issues. A single reviewer misses things that parallel review catches. In legal work, this principle is especially critical -- a clarity issue in a contract clause can become an enforceability issue, a tone miscalibration in a demand letter can undermine settlement posture, and a missing defined term can render an entire section ambiguous.

Process

Phase 1: Determine Review Scope

Read the completed work thoroughly.
Identify the work type to select appropriate reviewers.
Determine if this is legal work -- if so, apply the Legal Work Type Review Matrix (below) in addition to or instead of the general matrix.

General Work Type Review Matrix

Work Type	Standard Reviewers	Conditional Reviewers
Communication	clarity-reviewer, tone-calibrator, completeness-auditor	sensitivity-scanner (if sensitive topic), strategic-alignment-checker (if strategic)
Decision	completeness-auditor, risk-assessor, devil's-advocate, actionability-validator	strategic-alignment-checker (if organizational), sensitivity-scanner (if political)
Analysis	completeness-auditor, clarity-reviewer, actionability-validator	risk-assessor (if recommendations included), devil's-advocate (if controversial)
Meeting prep	completeness-auditor, actionability-validator, clarity-reviewer	sensitivity-scanner (if contentious topics)
Coaching notes	clarity-reviewer, actionability-validator	tone-calibrator (if shared with coachee)

Legal Work Type Review Matrix

Legal work products require specialized review criteria beyond general knowledge work. When the work under review is a legal deliverable, use this matrix to select reviewers with their legal-specific lenses activated.

Legal Work Type	Standard Reviewers	Specialized Legal Review Focus	Conditional Reviewers
Contract / Agreement	clarity-reviewer, completeness-auditor, risk-assessor, actionability-validator	Clause completeness and internal consistency; defined terms consistency (every defined term used, every used term defined); cross-reference accuracy (section numbers, exhibit references, schedule callouts); enforceability analysis (consideration, capacity, legality, mutual assent); jurisdiction-specific requirements (governing law, dispute resolution, statutory formalities); boilerplate adequacy (severability, entire agreement, amendment, waiver, assignment, notices)	sensitivity-scanner (if confidentiality/privilege concerns), strategic-alignment-checker (if part of broader transaction), devil's-advocate (if novel or aggressive provisions), tone-calibrator (if client-facing or negotiation document)
Legal Memorandum	clarity-reviewer, completeness-auditor, devil's-advocate, actionability-validator	IRAC/CREAC structure integrity (Issue clearly framed, Rule accurately stated, Application thorough, Conclusion supported); authority currency (are cited cases still good law? has legislation been amended?); counter-argument strength (has the memo addressed the strongest opposing arguments, not just straw men?); practical recommendations (does the conclusion lead to actionable advice, not just academic analysis?); client question coverage (does the memo answer what was actually asked?)	risk-assessor (if litigation or regulatory exposure), strategic-alignment-checker (if part of ongoing matter strategy), tone-calibrator (if client-facing memo)
Court Filing / Brief	clarity-reviewer, completeness-auditor, tone-calibrator, actionability-validator	Procedural compliance (correct court, correct caption, correct filing method); local rules conformance (page margins, font size, line spacing, cover page requirements); citation format (Bluebook, ALWD, or jurisdiction-specific citation rules); page/word limits (compliance with applicable rules, including footnote counting rules); certificate of service (proper parties, proper method, proper timing); signature block and attorney identification; standing and jurisdiction assertions; prayer for relief specificity	sensitivity-scanner (if sealed or confidential material), risk-assessor (if sanctions risk or Rule 11 concerns), devil's-advocate (always -- opposing counsel will challenge every argument), strategic-alignment-checker (if part of broader litigation strategy)
Regulatory Submission	completeness-auditor, clarity-reviewer, risk-assessor, sensitivity-scanner	Regulatory format requirements (correct form, correct agency, correct submission portal); completeness per applicable regulations (all required fields, attachments, and certifications); supporting documentation (exhibits, declarations, financial statements as required); deadline compliance (filing deadlines, comment periods, response windows); regulatory tone and cooperation posture; accuracy of factual representations; consistency with prior submissions to same regulator	tone-calibrator (if public comment or hearing testimony), strategic-alignment-checker (if part of ongoing regulatory relationship), devil's-advocate (if novel regulatory interpretation)
Corporate Resolution	completeness-auditor, clarity-reviewer, strategic-alignment-checker, actionability-validator	Authority verification (does the resolving body have authority for this action under charter, bylaws, operating agreement, or statute?); quorum requirements (was quorum present or will it be for written consent?); proper authorization chain (board authorizes what requires board action, shareholders what requires shareholder action, officers what requires officer action); voting thresholds (simple majority, supermajority, unanimous consent as required); conflict of interest procedures (recusal, independent committee, fairness opinion); corporate formalities (proper notice, proper meeting conduct, proper minutes)	sensitivity-scanner (if fiduciary duty concerns or related-party transaction), risk-assessor (if ultra vires risk or D&O exposure), devil's-advocate (if contested action or potential challenge)
Opinion Letter	clarity-reviewer, completeness-auditor, risk-assessor, sensitivity-scanner	Customary qualifications and assumptions; knowledge qualifiers ("to our knowledge" scope); reliance letters and third-party addressees; factual certificate review; opinion scope limitations; exception carve-outs; enforceability qualifications (bankruptcy, equitable principles, public policy); golden parachute and fraudulent transfer opinions where applicable	strategic-alignment-checker (if part of transaction closing), devil's-advocate (if aggressive opinion positions), tone-calibrator (if reliance parties include opposing counsel or regulators)
Due Diligence Report	completeness-auditor, risk-assessor, clarity-reviewer, actionability-validator	Coverage of all material categories (corporate, contracts, litigation, IP, employment, real property, environmental, tax, regulatory); red flag identification and severity classification; document request list completeness; gap analysis (documents requested but not received); materiality thresholds applied consistently; assumptions and limitations stated; follow-up items identified and prioritized	sensitivity-scanner (if MNPI or insider information concerns), strategic-alignment-checker (if informing transaction terms), devil's-advocate (if seller's or target's representations need testing)
Compliance Policy / Manual	completeness-auditor, clarity-reviewer, actionability-validator, risk-assessor	Regulatory coverage (does the policy address all applicable regulatory requirements?); practical implementability (can employees actually follow these procedures?); training and acknowledgment requirements; escalation procedures and reporting channels; record retention requirements; monitoring and audit provisions; penalty and enforcement provisions; version control and update procedures	sensitivity-scanner (if whistleblower or retaliation concerns), tone-calibrator (if employee-facing communication), strategic-alignment-checker (if part of broader compliance program)

Check if the plan specified reviewers. If so, use those as the baseline and layer legal-specific focus areas on top.

Phase 2: Parallel Agent Review

Launch all selected review agents in parallel using the Task tool.

Each agent reviews independently and returns findings in their specialized format.

Agent Instructions:

Each agent receives the complete work output
Each agent applies its specialized lens
Each agent returns findings with severity levels
For legal work: Each agent also applies its legal-specific review criteria as described in its agent file
For legal work: Each agent flags any finding that implicates a Legal Review Quality Gate (see below)

Legal Review Quality Gates

Before synthesizing findings for legal work products, verify that the following quality gates have been checked. These are pass/fail gates -- a failure in any gate requires flagging as a Critical issue regardless of which agent discovered it.

Quality Gate	Description	Applies To
Citation Verification	Every case, statute, regulation, and rule cited must be checked for: (a) correct citation format, (b) current validity (not overruled, repealed, or superseded), (c) accurate quotation and parenthetical description, (d) relevance to the proposition cited for. Flag any citation that cannot be verified as [UNVERIFIED -- REQUIRES MANUAL CHECK].	Memoranda, Briefs, Opinion Letters, Regulatory Submissions
Defined Term Consistency	Every capitalized term used as a defined term must have a corresponding definition. Every defined term must be used at least once. No defined term should be defined differently in different sections. Cross-check the definitions section against usage throughout the document.	Contracts, Corporate Resolutions, Compliance Policies
Cross-Reference Integrity	Every internal cross-reference (section numbers, exhibit references, schedule callouts, "as defined in Section X") must point to the correct target. Check for orphaned references (pointing to sections that do not exist) and stale references (pointing to sections that have been renumbered).	All legal documents
Privilege Review	Scan for content that may inadvertently waive attorney-client privilege or work product protection. Flag: (a) descriptions of legal advice in non-privileged documents, (b) forwarding of privileged communications to non-privileged recipients, (c) inclusion of attorney mental impressions in discoverable documents, (d) failure to mark privileged documents as such.	All legal documents, especially those shared externally
Conflict Check	Verify that the work product does not contain positions or representations that conflict with positions taken in other matters for the same client, or that create adverse interest conflicts. Flag any apparent conflict for human review.	All legal documents
Ethical Obligations Check	Verify compliance with applicable rules of professional conduct: (a) no false statements of fact or law, (b) disclosure of directly adverse mandatory authority, (c) no assistance with client fraud or crime, (d) proper identification of the client and authorized representatives, (e) candor to tribunals where applicable.	All legal documents, especially court filings and regulatory submissions
Deadline / Statute of Limitations Verification	Check for any deadline-sensitive elements: (a) filing deadlines, (b) statutes of limitations, (c) contractual notice periods, (d) regulatory response windows, (e) option exercise periods. Flag any deadline within 30 days as URGENT. Flag any deadline that appears to have passed as CRITICAL.	Court Filings, Regulatory Submissions, Contracts, Corporate Actions
Signature and Execution Requirements	Verify that the document identifies the correct signatories, includes proper authority representations, and complies with execution formalities (notarization, witnessing, corporate seal) required by the governing law and document type.	Contracts, Corporate Resolutions, Opinion Letters, Regulatory Submissions

Phase 3: Synthesize Findings

After all agents return, synthesize their findings.

For general work, use the standard output format below. For legal work, use the Legal Review Output Format, which adds legal-specific sections.

Standard Output Format

## Review Summary

### Overall Assessment

**Quality Score**: [1-10]
[2-3 sentence assessment of overall quality and readiness]

### Critical Issues (Must Fix)

Issues that would cause real problems if not addressed.

#### Issue 1: [Title]

- **Found by**: [Agent name]
- **Location**: [Where in the document]
- **Problem**: [What's wrong]
- **Impact**: [What happens if not fixed]
- **Fix**: [Specific recommendation]

### Important Issues (Should Fix)

Issues that meaningfully improve quality.

#### Issue 1: [Title]

- **Found by**: [Agent name]
- **Location**: [Where in the document]
- **Problem**: [What's wrong]
- **Fix**: [Specific recommendation]

### Minor Issues (Nice to Fix)

Polish and refinement opportunities.

- [Issue]: [Quick fix] _(found by [agent])_
- [Issue]: [Quick fix] _(found by [agent])_

### What's Working Well

- [Strength 1] _(noted by [agent])_
- [Strength 2] _(noted by [agent])_

### Conflicting Feedback

[If agents disagree, note the conflict and recommend resolution]

### Recommended Action

- [ ] Fix critical issues (estimated: [time])
- [ ] Fix important issues (estimated: [time])
- [ ] Fix minor issues (estimated: [time])
- [ ] Ready to finalize after fixes

Legal Review Output Format

For legal work products, use this enhanced format that includes legal-specific sections.

## Legal Work Review Summary

### Document Profile

- **Document Type**: [Contract / Memorandum / Brief / Filing / Resolution / etc.]
- **Jurisdiction**: [Governing law or forum]
- **Matter**: [Matter name or reference if known]
- **Date of Review**: [Date]
- **Privilege Status**: [Privileged / Non-privileged / Mixed -- handle accordingly]

### Overall Assessment

**Quality Score**: [1-10]
**Legal Readiness**: [Ready for filing/execution / Needs revision / Significant rework required]
[2-3 sentence assessment of overall quality, legal soundness, and readiness]

### Quality Gate Results

| Quality Gate                     | Status            | Notes     |
| -------------------------------- | ----------------- | --------- |
| Citation Verification            | PASS / FAIL / N/A | [Details] |
| Defined Term Consistency         | PASS / FAIL / N/A | [Details] |
| Cross-Reference Integrity        | PASS / FAIL / N/A | [Details] |
| Privilege Review                 | PASS / FAIL / N/A | [Details] |
| Conflict Check                   | PASS / FAIL / N/A | [Details] |
| Ethical Obligations              | PASS / FAIL / N/A | [Details] |
| Deadline Verification            | PASS / FAIL / N/A | [Details] |
| Signature/Execution Requirements | PASS / FAIL / N/A | [Details] |

### Critical Issues (Must Fix Before Filing/Execution)

Issues that create legal risk, procedural deficiency, or enforceability problems.

#### Issue 1: [Title]

- **Found by**: [Agent name]
- **Category**: [Enforceability / Procedural / Substantive / Ethical / Privilege]
- **Location**: [Section, page, or clause reference]
- **Problem**: [What's wrong and why it matters legally]
- **Legal Risk**: [What happens if not fixed -- exposure, challenge, invalidity, sanctions]
- **Fix**: [Specific recommendation with draft language where appropriate]
- **Authority**: [Relevant rule, statute, or case if applicable]
- **Urgency**: [Immediate / Before filing / Before execution / Before distribution]

### Important Issues (Should Fix)

Issues that meaningfully improve legal quality, reduce risk, or strengthen the position.

#### Issue 1: [Title]

- **Found by**: [Agent name]
- **Category**: [Drafting / Analytical / Strategic / Procedural]
- **Location**: [Section, page, or clause reference]
- **Problem**: [What's wrong]
- **Fix**: [Specific recommendation]

### Minor Issues (Nice to Fix)

Polish, formatting, citation style, and refinement opportunities.

- [Issue]: [Quick fix] _(found by [agent])_
- [Issue]: [Quick fix] _(found by [agent])_

### What's Working Well

- [Strength 1] _(noted by [agent])_
- [Strength 2] _(noted by [agent])_

### Conflicting Feedback

[If agents disagree, note the conflict and recommend resolution.
In legal work, conflicting feedback often reflects genuine tensions -- e.g.,
aggressive advocacy vs. candor to tribunal, comprehensive disclosure vs. privilege
protection. Present both positions and the legal framework for resolving the tension.]

### Confidence Assessment

| Aspect                       | Confidence        | Basis                      |
| ---------------------------- | ----------------- | -------------------------- |
| Factual accuracy             | [High/Medium/Low] | [How verified]             |
| Legal analysis soundness     | [High/Medium/Low] | [Basis for assessment]     |
| Citation currency            | [High/Medium/Low] | [Verification method]      |
| Jurisdictional applicability | [High/Medium/Low] | [Governing law confirmed?] |

### Recommended Action

- [ ] Fix critical issues (estimated: [time])
- [ ] Fix important issues (estimated: [time])
- [ ] Fix minor issues (estimated: [time])
- [ ] Human attorney review of [specific issues requiring professional judgment]
- [ ] Citation verification against authoritative sources for [unverified citations]
- [ ] Ready to finalize after fixes and attorney sign-off

Phase 4: Apply Fixes

If the user approves:

Fix critical issues first. For legal work, prioritize quality gate failures and enforceability issues.
Fix important issues.
Fix minor issues if time permits.
Present the revised version with a summary of changes made.
For legal work: Flag any changes that require attorney review before the document can be considered final. AI review is a quality tool, not a substitute for professional legal judgment.

If issues conflict, present the tradeoff to the user and let them decide. In legal work, conflicts often involve genuine policy tensions (e.g., aggressive position vs. sanctions risk, comprehensive disclosure vs. privilege protection, plain language vs. legal precision). Frame these as the legal tradeoffs they are.

Review Principles

Severity Calibration

General Work

Critical: Would cause real damage -- wrong tone in sensitive email, missing key stakeholder concern, factual error in analysis, flawed logic in decision
Important: Meaningful quality improvement -- unclear structure, missing context, weak evidence, incomplete consideration
Minor: Polish -- word choice, formatting, small redundancies

Legal Work -- Severity Calibration with Examples

Critical -- Creates legal risk, procedural deficiency, or enforceability failure. Must be fixed before the document can be used.

Example	Why Critical
Defined term "Confidential Information" used throughout but never defined	Entire confidentiality obligation is unenforceable -- core term is void for vagueness
Brief cites Lochner v. New York for economic substantive due process without noting it has been effectively overruled	Opposing counsel will attack credibility; court may impose sanctions for citing discredited authority
Contract cross-references "Section 8.3" but document only has 7 sections	Orphaned reference creates ambiguity about what obligation was intended; may void the provision
Merger agreement lacks required shareholder approval provision for a transaction exceeding statutory threshold	Transaction may be voidable; directors face breach of fiduciary duty claims
Regulatory filing misses statutory deadline by referencing wrong effective date	Filing may be rejected; client may lose rights or face enforcement action
Court brief exceeds word limit by 2,000 words	Filing will be rejected or stricken; potential sanctions
Opinion letter fails to include standard bankruptcy qualification	Drafter liability exposure; reliance party may have claims
Corporate resolution authorizes action ultra vires the company's charter	Resolution is void; officers acting on it face personal liability

Important -- Meaningfully improves legal quality, reduces risk, or strengthens the position. Should be fixed before finalization.

Example	Why Important
Contract uses "best efforts" where "commercially reasonable efforts" would be more appropriate	"Best efforts" may impose a higher standard than intended; could require actions adverse to the obligor's own interests
Memo analyzes majority rule but doesn't address minority view adopted in the forum jurisdiction	Analysis is incomplete for the jurisdiction where it matters most; advice may be wrong
Indemnification clause lacks a cap or basket	Unlimited liability exposure; standard market practice includes caps
Force majeure clause doesn't include pandemic/epidemic	Post-COVID, this is a known gap that sophisticated counterparties will flag
Brief argument section doesn't address opposing party's strongest case	Court may view the omission as concession; weakens persuasive force
Regulatory submission uses inconsistent terminology for the same concept	Regulator may interpret inconsistency as describing different things; creates confusion
Corporate minutes don't reflect that conflicted director recused from vote	Failure to document conflict procedures undermines business judgment rule protection

Minor -- Polish and refinement. Nice to fix but not blocking.

Example	Why Minor
Inconsistent use of "herein" vs. "in this Agreement"	Style inconsistency; no legal effect but looks unprofessional
Bluebook citation uses "Id." where "id." (lowercase) is correct under current edition	Technical citation format; court is unlikely to care but perfectionism matters
Recitals use "WHEREAS" in some clauses and "Whereas" in others	Formatting inconsistency; no legal significance
Memo uses both "Section" and "s." to refer to statutory provisions	Style inconsistency; recommend standardizing
Contract has minor numbering gap (Section 4.1, 4.2, 4.4 -- missing 4.3)	Numbering error; no substantive issue if cross-references are correct

Independence Matters

Each agent reviews independently
Don't let one agent's findings influence another
Conflicts between agents are valuable signal
In legal review, independent review is especially important because different legal concerns genuinely pull in different directions (e.g., comprehensive disclosure vs. privilege protection, aggressive advocacy vs. sanctions risk)

Review Should Be Proportional

Quick internal note: clarity-reviewer only
Important email: clarity + tone + completeness
Board presentation: all standard + conditional reviewers
Strategic decision: all reviewers including devil's-advocate
Contract for execution: all standard + legal quality gates
Court filing: all standard + procedural compliance + citation verification + opposing counsel simulation (devil's-advocate)
Regulatory submission: all standard + regulatory format + deadline verification + sensitivity scan
Corporate resolution: all standard + authority verification + conflict check + governance alignment

The Devil's Advocate is Special

Always include for decisions and recommendations
Its job is to find the strongest counterargument
Don't dismiss its findings just because you disagree
If the devil's advocate can't find a good counterargument, that's strong validation
In legal work: The devil's advocate simulates opposing counsel, the regulator, or the most hostile reader. This is not optional for adversarial legal work -- it is essential.

Legal Anti-Patterns to Avoid

These are common failure modes in legal work review. Watch for them and flag when they occur.

Drafting Anti-Patterns

Anti-Pattern	Description	Risk
Defined Term Proliferation	Defining terms that are used only once, or defining terms that have their ordinary meaning	Clutters the document; creates ambiguity about whether undefined terms have special meaning
Circular Definitions	Term A is defined by reference to Term B, which is defined by reference to Term A	Definition provides no actual meaning; provision may be unenforceable
Belt and Suspenders Overload	Including every conceivable protective clause regardless of relevance	Makes the document harder to negotiate, slower to execute, and may invite challenges to provisions that weren't carefully tailored
Copy-Paste Jurisdiction Mismatch	Using provisions drafted for one jurisdiction in a document governed by another without adaptation	Provisions may be unenforceable, unnecessary, or missing jurisdiction-specific requirements
Ambiguous Antecedents	Pronoun references that could refer to multiple parties or concepts	Creates genuine ambiguity about obligations; may be construed against the drafter (contra proferentem)
Dangling Cross-References	References to sections, exhibits, or schedules that don't exist or have been renumbered	Creates gaps in the document; may void referenced obligations
Inconsistent Defined Terms	Same concept referred to by different defined terms in different sections, or same defined term used with subtly different meanings	Courts may interpret inconsistency as intentional distinction; creates unintended obligations or gaps

Analysis Anti-Patterns

Anti-Pattern	Description	Risk
Straw Man Counter-Arguments	Addressing only weak opposing arguments while ignoring the strong ones	Analysis provides false confidence; actual opposing arguments will be stronger
Jurisdiction Shopping in Authority	Citing favorable authority from non-binding jurisdictions while ignoring unfavorable authority from the binding jurisdiction	Misleading analysis; may violate ethical obligations of candor
Outdated Authority Reliance	Relying on cases or statutes without checking for subsequent history	Analysis may be based on overruled or repealed authority; advice may be wrong
Conclusory Analysis	Stating conclusions without showing the analytical path from rule to application	Reader cannot evaluate the quality of the analysis; undermines credibility
Academic Abstraction	Providing thorough legal analysis but no practical recommendation for what the client should do	Analysis is useless to the client; fails to answer the question asked
Single-Jurisdiction Blinders	Analyzing under one jurisdiction when the matter has multi-jurisdictional implications	Missing risks from other applicable jurisdictions

Review Process Anti-Patterns

Anti-Pattern	Description	Risk
Running review on low-stakes work	Applying full multi-agent review to routine, low-risk documents	Wastes time and resources; creates review fatigue
Ignoring conflicting feedback	Dismissing conflicts between agents instead of resolving them	Conflicts often signal genuine legal tensions that need resolution
Treating all findings as equal severity	Failing to triage -- spending equal time on citation format as on enforceability issues	Critical issues may not get fixed before deadline
Over-revising based on minor feedback	Making extensive changes based on stylistic preferences that don't affect legal substance	Introduces new errors; delays finalization without meaningful improvement
Not running devil's advocate on adversarial work	Skipping opposing counsel simulation on briefs, motions, or contested contracts	Missing the arguments that will actually be made against you
Applying fixes without attorney review	Making substantive legal changes based on AI review without human attorney oversight	AI may introduce errors; changes may not reflect the attorney's judgment or the client's instructions
Privilege-blind review	Sharing privileged work product with non-privileged review channels or failing to mark privileged output	May waive attorney-client privilege or work product protection

Next Step

When the work is finalized, capture what you learned: /coworkpowers:workflow-compound

legalcode-workflow-review

About