Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

codexkit-contract-intake-router

Standardize incoming legal or commercial contract requests into request type, missing information, priority, and review queue. Use when the work is intake routing and request cleanup. Do not use for clause interpretation, negotiation strategy, or legal advice on the agreement itself.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (2)

  • SKILL.md2.7 KB
  • agents/openai.yaml181 B

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Contract Intake Router

Purpose

Clean up contract intake so legal review starts with the right information.

When to use

  • requests arrive through email or chat with inconsistent detail
  • legal ops needs a clearer intake queue
  • the team wants to separate routing from legal analysis

When not to use

  • the task is clause review or negotiation advice
  • the request needs legal judgment on risk allocation

Inputs

  • intake requests or copied request list
  • requester, counterparty, deadline, and agreement type if available
  • routing rules if known

Procedure

  1. Normalize each request into request type, urgency, and owner.
  2. Flag missing counterparty, deadline, or document context.
  3. Separate routine routing from likely escalation items.
  4. Group requests by review lane where possible.
  5. End with missing-information follow-ups and next queue actions.

Output

  • intake queue
  • missing information list
  • suggested routing lane
  • escalation candidates

Definition of done

  • requests are easier to route than when they arrived
  • missing information is explicit
  • the output avoids pretending to be legal analysis

Examples

  • "Clean up this legal inbox into request type, priority, and missing info."
  • "Turn these contract asks into a structured intake queue for legal ops."

Quality Criteria

  • Trigger conditions and input requirements are unambiguous
  • Each automated step produces a verifiable output
  • Error handling and fallback paths are defined
  • Manual override points are documented

Verification (4C)

CheckQuestion
CorrectnessDoes the workflow produce the expected output for the defined inputs?
CompletenessAre all trigger conditions, edge cases, and error paths handled?
Context-fitIs the automation appropriate for the frequency and criticality of this task?
ConsequenceIf this ran unattended and failed silently, what would the downstream impact be?

Edge Cases

  • Input format varies unexpectedly — Add a normalization step at entry. Alert the operator on format mismatches.
  • Downstream system is unavailable — Queue the output and retry with exponential backoff. Alert after N failures.
  • Partial execution completes — Ensure idempotency — re-running from the start produces the same result without duplication.

Changelog

  • v1.0.0 — Initial release

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

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.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Design rigorous A/B test plans with hypothesis, sample size calculation, Minimum Detectable Effect (MDE), randomization strategy, and decision rules. Includes guardrail metrics and rollout playbook. Use when planning product experiments, conversion optimization, or data-driven feature decisions.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

hoavdc/CodexKit25Updated Oct 11, 2026

Review REST and GraphQL API designs for consistency, usability, and best practices. Covers naming conventions, versioning strategy, error format, pagination, authentication patterns, and breaking change detection. Use when reviewing API specs, designing new APIs, or auditing existing endpoints.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

hoavdc/CodexKit25Updated Oct 11, 2026

Write Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) following the Michael Nygard format. Captures context, options considered, decision rationale, and consequences. Use when making technology choices, framework selections, or any architectural decision that future developers need to understand.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

hoavdc/CodexKit25Updated Oct 11, 2026

Assess organizational readiness for financial audits (internal or external). Map assertions to account balances, check evidence completeness, score readiness using a Red/Amber/Green framework, and generate a remediation timeline. Aligned with SOX, IFRS, and GAAP audit standards. Use before scheduled audits or when preparing for first-time compliance.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

hoavdc/CodexKit25Updated Oct 11, 2026

Design safe recurring Codex automations with clear prompts, outputs, schedules, and gating rules.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

hoavdc/CodexKit25Updated Oct 11, 2026

Refine Product Backlog Items to meet INVEST criteria. Write User Stories with Acceptance Criteria in Given/When/Then format, estimate with Story Points, and flag dependencies. Use before sprint planning when backlog items need grooming. Do not use to prioritize the backlog — that is the Product Owner's decision.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

hoavdc/CodexKit25Updated Oct 11, 2026

See all skills by hoavdc

Report a problem with this skill