Manage a professor’s review queue for student work before it reaches clients or courts. View pending documents by urgency and student, then record approvals, edits, or returns with feedback while preserving the original version when edited.
Professor's review queue — student output waits here for professor approval before going to clients or courts. Only active if "formal review queue" supervision style was chosen at setup; otherwise dormant. Use when the professor wants to see what's waiting for review, approve, edit-then-approve, or return an item.
Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/legal-clinic/CLAUDE.md → supervision style. If NOT "formal review queue": explain the clinic is set up for [flags/lighter-touch], no formal queue exists, and how to switch./legal-clinic:supervisor-review-queue
/legal-clinic:supervisor-review-queue --approve Q-003
/legal-clinic:supervisor-review-queue --return Q-004 "Check the service requirement — local rules changed"
Some clinics want a formal gate: student drafts, professor reviews, output releases. Others find that too prescriptive — they supervise through case rounds and one-on-ones, not through a queue.
This skill is only active if ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/legal-clinic/CLAUDE.md → Supervision style is "formal review queue." Otherwise it's dormant — the cold-start interview asks the professor which model they want, and this is one of three options.
Whether to use a formal review workflow is genuinely an open question for clinic adoption. It depends on student experience level, caseload, and how the professor already runs supervision. The professor decides at setup and can change it later.
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/legal-clinic/CLAUDE.md → supervision style. If NOT "formal review queue": respond with "The clinic is set up for [flags/lighter-touch] supervision — there's no formal queue. [Professor] reviews through [the clinic's existing structure]. To switch to a formal queue, edit CLAUDE.md → Supervision style."
If formal queue IS enabled → read flag triggers and proceed.
Lives at references/review-queue.yaml. Each entry:
- id: Q-001
type: "draft" # intake | draft | memo | status | client-letter
client: "[name or ID]"
student: "[name]"
submitted: [timestamp]
flags:
- rule: "Court filing"
detail: "Eviction answer — always queued"
content_path: "[path to the document]"
status: "pending" # pending | approved | edited-approved | returned
## Review Queue — [date]
**Pending:** [N] | **Oldest:** [N] hours
### 🔴 Deadline-sensitive
| ID | Type | Client | Student | Why flagged | Waiting |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
### Standard
[same table]
### By student
[Breakdown — spot patterns: who's queueing a lot, who might need a check-in]
Show full content + why it was flagged + student notes.
Every action logged. Approval logs are clinic records — they document that a licensed attorney, solicitor, barrister, or other authorised legal professional in the clinic's jurisdiction reviewed student work before it went to a client or court. That matters for the clinic's own compliance and for student evaluation.
The queue is also data. Pattern in returns ("Student X keeps missing the service requirement") is a coaching conversation. Pattern in edits ("Everyone's demand letters are too long") is a /ramp update for next semester.
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Build an AI system register for EU AI Act reviews. Track owners, deployment status, EU connections, and each system’s role and risk category through a guided discussion, preserving classification reasons and dates for future review.
Coordinate bulk contract clause extraction with Luminance or Kira, prepare loading requests, and check returned results according to your team's review settings. Assess flagged clauses against the transaction and organize findings and required consents.
Create an AI impact assessment in your team's format. Gather system details through conversation, analyze risks and applicable regulatory classifications, check consistency with internal policy, and document recommendations, safeguards, and conditions for deployment.
Trace changes across an original contract and its amendments. Get a chronological overview or follow one clause through successive revisions, with section references, current wording, and flags for conflicting or unclear language that needs legal review.
Check installed community skills for updates, review file changes and expanded permissions, and flag outdated references. Updates require explicit approval, with backups available to restore the previous version if needed.
Practice for a U.S. bar exam with questions matched to the exam format, jurisdiction, and weak subjects. Get explanations for answer choices, essay feedback, and session records that reveal recurring mistakes and guide further practice.