fix(plugins): sync all 171 plugin SKILL.md files with fixed skills/ versions
Propagates Anti-Patterns sections, description rewrites, Required Inputs additions, and Quality Checks format fixes from skills/ to matching plugin SKILL.md copies. https://claude.ai/code/session_01MuGKn3a3Gbqoe8uM5Lmuqt
This commit is contained in:
Mohit
@@ -99,6 +99,14 @@ Once certified/compliant, what needs to continue:
|
||||
- [ ] Quick wins clearly separated from complex implementations
|
||||
- [ ] Evidence requirements tied to specific controls
|
||||
|
||||
## Anti-Patterns
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Do not omit the legal disclaimer — this checklist does not constitute compliance advice and must never be presented as a substitute for qualified professional review
|
||||
- [ ] Do not generate a generic checklist that is not tailored to the stated framework, organisation type, and maturity level — a SOC 2 checklist for a startup and an enterprise are fundamentally different documents
|
||||
- [ ] Do not list controls without specifying what evidence is required — a control without evidence requirements cannot be audited
|
||||
- [ ] Do not mark a control as "full" implementation when it is partial — overestimating readiness leads to audit failures and regulatory risk
|
||||
- [ ] Do not skip the "common pitfalls" section — this is where organisations most frequently fail audits for the stated framework
|
||||
|
||||
## Example Trigger Phrases
|
||||
- "Create a GDPR compliance checklist for our SaaS"
|
||||
- "Generate a SOC 2 Type II readiness checklist"
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -65,6 +65,14 @@ WARNING: This review is for informational purposes only and does not constitute
|
||||
- [ ] Plain English summary can be understood by a non-lawyer
|
||||
- [ ] Disclaimer is included
|
||||
|
||||
## Anti-Patterns
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Do not provide legal advice or suggest the review substitutes for qualified legal counsel
|
||||
- [ ] Do not skip flagging unusual or one-sided clauses because they appear standard
|
||||
- [ ] Do not omit a plain-English summary — legal jargon alone is not useful output
|
||||
- [ ] Do not rate risk without explaining what specifically drives that rating
|
||||
- [ ] Do not ignore missing clauses — absence of key protections is itself a risk
|
||||
|
||||
## Example Trigger Phrases
|
||||
- "Review this contract: [paste]"
|
||||
- "Flag the key risks in this agreement"
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -65,6 +65,14 @@ WARNING: This draft requires review by a qualified legal professional. It does n
|
||||
- [ ] Caveats section lists what would change the analysis
|
||||
- [ ] Disclaimer is included
|
||||
|
||||
## Anti-Patterns
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Do not present uncertain legal positions with confident language — areas of legal ambiguity must be flagged explicitly, not smoothed over
|
||||
- [ ] Do not omit the disclaimer — every legal brief output must include the professional review caveat before the user treats it as advice
|
||||
- [ ] Do not structure the brief chronologically — IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) must be used regardless of how the user framed the request
|
||||
- [ ] Do not cite cases or statutes from memory without flagging them as [REQUIRES VERIFICATION] — hallucinated citations are worse than no citations
|
||||
- [ ] Do not conflate jurisdiction — legal positions in England & Wales, US, and EU can differ materially; always confirm jurisdiction before stating the rule
|
||||
|
||||
## Example Trigger Phrases
|
||||
- "Draft a legal memo on [issue]"
|
||||
- "Write a legal brief arguing [position]"
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: nda-analyser
|
||||
description: "Analyse a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) and flag key terms, unusual provisions, and negotiation points. Use when asked to review an NDA, mutual NDA, confidentiality agreement, or non-disclosure deed. Produces clause-by-clause analysis with risk flags and a negotiation checklist."
|
||||
description: "Analyses a Non-Disclosure Agreement clause by clause and flags unusual terms, one-sided provisions, and negotiation points. Use when reviewing an NDA, mutual NDA, confidentiality agreement, or non-disclosure deed before signing or countering. Produces a plain English verdict, clause-by-clause risk analysis, and a prioritised negotiation checklist — always with a disclaimer that qualified legal advice is required before signing."
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# NDA Analyser Skill
|
||||
@@ -61,6 +61,14 @@ WARNING: This analysis is for informational purposes only and is not legal advic
|
||||
- [ ] Plain English verdict given (standard / one-sided / needs lawyer)
|
||||
- [ ] Disclaimer is included
|
||||
|
||||
## Anti-Patterns
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Do not present the analysis as legal advice — the disclaimer must appear prominently and the output must recommend qualified legal review before any signing decision
|
||||
- [ ] Do not skip the residuals clause check — residuals clauses allow the receiving party to use disclosed information from memory, which is one of the highest-risk provisions in any NDA
|
||||
- [ ] Do not evaluate only the clauses explicitly flagged by the user — a complete analysis must cover all standard clause types even if the user only asked about one
|
||||
- [ ] Do not assess breadth of the confidentiality definition without checking for oral disclosure coverage — oral disclosures with no written confirmation requirement are a common enforcement gap
|
||||
- [ ] Do not omit the plain English verdict — a clause-by-clause analysis without a summary conclusion leaves the user unable to act on the findings
|
||||
|
||||
## Example Trigger Phrases
|
||||
- "Analyse this NDA"
|
||||
- "Review this confidentiality agreement"
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user