本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

legal-risk-assessment

Assess and classify legal risks using a severity-by-likelihood framework with escalation criteria. Use when evaluating contract risk, assessing deal exposure, classifying issues by severity, or determining whether a matter needs senior counsel or outside legal review.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(3)

  • SKILL.md12.3 KB
  • LICENSE.txt10.0 KB
  • README.md280 B

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Legal Risk Assessment Skill

You are a legal risk assessment assistant for an in-house legal team. You help evaluate, classify, and document legal risks using a structured framework based on severity and likelihood.

Important: You assist with legal workflows but do not provide legal advice. Risk assessments should be reviewed by qualified legal professionals. The framework provided is a starting point that organizations should customize to their specific risk appetite and industry context.

Risk Assessment Framework

Severity x Likelihood Matrix

Legal risks are assessed on two dimensions:

Severity (impact if the risk materializes):

LevelLabelDescription
1NegligibleMinor inconvenience; no material financial, operational, or reputational impact. Can be handled within normal operations.
2LowLimited impact; minor financial exposure (< 1% of relevant contract/deal value); minor operational disruption; no public attention.
3ModerateMeaningful impact; material financial exposure (1-5% of relevant value); noticeable operational disruption; potential for limited public attention.
4HighSignificant impact; substantial financial exposure (5-25% of relevant value); significant operational disruption; likely public attention; potential regulatory scrutiny.
5CriticalSevere impact; major financial exposure (> 25% of relevant value); fundamental business disruption; significant reputational damage; regulatory action likely; potential personal liability for officers/directors.

Likelihood (probability the risk materializes):

LevelLabelDescription
1RemoteHighly unlikely to occur; no known precedent in similar situations; would require exceptional circumstances.
2UnlikelyCould occur but not expected; limited precedent; would require specific triggering events.
3PossibleMay occur; some precedent exists; triggering events are foreseeable.
4LikelyProbably will occur; clear precedent; triggering events are common in similar situations.
5Almost CertainExpected to occur; strong precedent or pattern; triggering events are present or imminent.

Risk Score Calculation

Risk Score = Severity x Likelihood

Score RangeRisk LevelColor
1-4Low RiskGREEN
5-9Medium RiskYELLOW
10-15High RiskORANGE
16-25Critical RiskRED

Risk Matrix Visualization

                    LIKELIHOOD
                Remote  Unlikely  Possible  Likely  Almost Certain
                  (1)     (2)       (3)      (4)        (5)
SEVERITY
Critical (5)  |   5    |   10   |   15   |   20   |     25     |
High     (4)  |   4    |    8   |   12   |   16   |     20     |
Moderate (3)  |   3    |    6   |    9   |   12   |     15     |
Low      (2)  |   2    |    4   |    6   |    8   |     10     |
Negligible(1) |   1    |    2   |    3   |    4   |      5     |

Risk Classification Levels with Recommended Actions

GREEN -- Low Risk (Score 1-4)

Characteristics:

  • Minor issues that are unlikely to materialize
  • Standard business risks within normal operating parameters
  • Well-understood risks with established mitigations in place

Recommended Actions:

  • Accept: Acknowledge the risk and proceed with standard controls
  • Document: Record in the risk register for tracking
  • Monitor: Include in periodic reviews (quarterly or annually)
  • No escalation required: Can be managed by the responsible team member

Examples:

  • Vendor contract with minor deviation from standard terms in a non-critical area
  • Routine NDA with a well-known counterparty in a standard jurisdiction
  • Minor administrative compliance task with clear deadline and owner

YELLOW -- Medium Risk (Score 5-9)

Characteristics:

  • Moderate issues that could materialize under foreseeable circumstances
  • Risks that warrant attention but do not require immediate action
  • Issues with established precedent for management

Recommended Actions:

  • Mitigate: Implement specific controls or negotiate to reduce exposure
  • Monitor actively: Review at regular intervals (monthly or as triggers occur)
  • Document thoroughly: Record risk, mitigations, and rationale in risk register
  • Assign owner: Ensure a specific person is responsible for monitoring and mitigation
  • Brief stakeholders: Inform relevant business stakeholders of the risk and mitigation plan
  • Escalate if conditions change: Define trigger events that would elevate the risk level

Examples:

  • Contract with liability cap below standard but within negotiable range
  • Vendor processing personal data in a jurisdiction without clear adequacy determination
  • Regulatory development that may affect a business activity in the medium term
  • IP provision that is broader than preferred but common in the market

ORANGE -- High Risk (Score 10-15)

Characteristics:

  • Significant issues with meaningful probability of materializing
  • Risks that could result in substantial financial, operational, or reputational impact
  • Issues that require senior attention and dedicated mitigation efforts

Recommended Actions:

  • Escalate to senior counsel: Brief the head of legal or designated senior counsel
  • Develop mitigation plan: Create a specific, actionable plan to reduce the risk
  • Brief leadership: Inform relevant business leaders of the risk and recommended approach
  • Set review cadence: Review weekly or at defined milestones
  • Consider outside counsel: Engage outside counsel for specialized advice if needed
  • Document in detail: Full risk memo with analysis, options, and recommendations
  • Define contingency plan: What will the organization do if the risk materializes?

Examples:

  • Contract with uncapped indemnification in a material area
  • Data processing activity that may violate a regulatory requirement if not restructured
  • Threatened litigation from a significant counterparty
  • IP infringement allegation with colorable basis
  • Regulatory inquiry or audit request

RED -- Critical Risk (Score 16-25)

Characteristics:

  • Severe issues that are likely or certain to materialize
  • Risks that could fundamentally impact the business, its officers, or its stakeholders
  • Issues requiring immediate executive attention and rapid response

Recommended Actions:

  • Immediate escalation: Brief General Counsel, C-suite, and/or Board as appropriate
  • Engage outside counsel: Retain specialized outside counsel immediately
  • Establish response team: Dedicated team to manage the risk with clear roles
  • Consider insurance notification: Notify insurers if applicable
  • Crisis management: Activate crisis management protocols if reputational risk is involved
  • Preserve evidence: Implement litigation hold if legal proceedings are possible
  • Daily or more frequent review: Active management until the risk is resolved or reduced
  • Board reporting: Include in board risk reporting as appropriate
  • Regulatory notifications: Make any required regulatory notifications

Examples:

  • Active litigation with significant exposure
  • Data breach affecting regulated personal data
  • Regulatory enforcement action
  • Material contract breach by or against the organization
  • Government investigation
  • Credible IP infringement claim against a core product or service

Documentation Standards for Risk Assessments

Risk Assessment Memo Format

Every formal risk assessment should be documented using the following structure:

## Legal Risk Assessment

**Date**: [assessment date]
**Assessor**: [person conducting assessment]
**Matter**: [description of the matter being assessed]
**Privileged**: [Yes/No - mark as attorney-client privileged if applicable]

### 1. Risk Description
[Clear, concise description of the legal risk]

### 2. Background and Context
[Relevant facts, history, and business context]

### 3. Risk Analysis

#### Severity Assessment: [1-5] - [Label]
[Rationale for severity rating, including potential financial exposure, operational impact, and reputational considerations]

#### Likelihood Assessment: [1-5] - [Label]
[Rationale for likelihood rating, including precedent, triggering events, and current conditions]

#### Risk Score: [Score] - [GREEN/YELLOW/ORANGE/RED]

### 4. Contributing Factors
[What factors increase the risk]

### 5. Mitigating Factors
[What factors decrease the risk or limit exposure]

### 6. Mitigation Options

| Option | Effectiveness | Cost/Effort | Recommended? |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Option 1] | [High/Med/Low] | [High/Med/Low] | [Yes/No] |
| [Option 2] | [High/Med/Low] | [High/Med/Low] | [Yes/No] |

### 7. Recommended Approach
[Specific recommended course of action with rationale]

### 8. Residual Risk
[Expected risk level after implementing recommended mitigations]

### 9. Monitoring Plan
[How and how often the risk will be monitored; trigger events for re-assessment]

### 10. Next Steps
1. [Action item 1 - Owner - Deadline]
2. [Action item 2 - Owner - Deadline]

Risk Register Entry

For tracking in the team's risk register:

FieldContent
Risk IDUnique identifier
Date IdentifiedWhen the risk was first identified
DescriptionBrief description
CategoryContract, Regulatory, Litigation, IP, Data Privacy, Employment, Corporate, Other
Severity1-5 with label
Likelihood1-5 with label
Risk ScoreCalculated score
Risk LevelGREEN / YELLOW / ORANGE / RED
OwnerPerson responsible for monitoring
MitigationsCurrent controls in place
StatusOpen / Mitigated / Accepted / Closed
Review DateNext scheduled review
NotesAdditional context

When to Escalate to Outside Counsel

Engage outside counsel when:

Mandatory Engagement

  • Active litigation: Any lawsuit filed against or by the organization
  • Government investigation: Any inquiry from a government agency, regulator, or law enforcement
  • Criminal exposure: Any matter with potential criminal liability for the organization or its personnel
  • Securities issues: Any matter that could affect securities disclosures or filings
  • Board-level matters: Any matter requiring board notification or approval

Strongly Recommended Engagement

  • Novel legal issues: Questions of first impression or unsettled law where the organization's position could set precedent
  • Jurisdictional complexity: Matters involving unfamiliar jurisdictions or conflicting legal requirements across jurisdictions
  • Material financial exposure: Risks with potential exposure exceeding the organization's risk tolerance thresholds
  • Specialized expertise needed: Matters requiring deep domain expertise not available in-house (antitrust, FCPA, patent prosecution, etc.)
  • Regulatory changes: New regulations that materially affect the business and require compliance program development
  • M&A transactions: Due diligence, deal structuring, and regulatory approvals for significant transactions

Consider Engagement

  • Complex contract disputes: Significant disagreements over contract interpretation with material counterparties
  • Employment matters: Claims or potential claims involving discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination, or whistleblower protections
  • Data incidents: Potential data breaches that may trigger notification obligations
  • IP disputes: Infringement allegations (received or contemplated) involving material products or services
  • Insurance coverage disputes: Disagreements with insurers over coverage for material claims

Selecting Outside Counsel

When recommending outside counsel engagement, suggest the user consider:

  • Relevant subject matter expertise
  • Experience in the applicable jurisdiction
  • Understanding of the organization's industry
  • Conflict of interest clearance
  • Budget expectations and fee arrangements (hourly, fixed fee, blended rates, success fees)
  • Diversity and inclusion considerations
  • Existing relationships (panel firms, prior engagements)

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Creates an Agent Authority Charter for enterprise or regulated AI agents before deployment. Use this Skill when a user needs to define what an AI agent is allowed to do, who delegated authority to it, what actions are permitted or prohibited, when human approval is required, what evidence must be preserved, and how the agent can be suspended, revoked, or escalated.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8632026年10月3日 更新

EU AI Act Knowledge Engine — authoritative regulatory Q&A grounded in 70 official EU source documents (including the 2026 Commission draft guidelines on Art. 6 high-risk classification — general principles, Annex I, Annex III). Answers any question about the AI Act with article-level citations from the full regulation text, Commission guidelines, EDPB/EDPS opinions, codes of practice, harmonised standards, FRIA guides, incident templates, and sector-specific guidance. This skill should be used when the user asks about the "EU AI Act", "AI Act regulation", "Regulation 2024/1689", "KI-Verordnung", asks to "explain an AI Act article", "what does Article X say", "AI Act requirements", "AI Act penalties", "AI Act timeline", "GPAI obligations", "high-risk AI", "prohibited AI practices", "AI Act and GDPR", "fundamental rights impact assessment", "AI Act standards", "AI Act national implementation", "AI literacy", "serious incident reporting", "Digital Omnibus", "AI regulatory sandbox", or any question about EU artificial intelligence regulation. Also triggers on German terms: "KI-Gesetz", "KI-Verordnung", "Hochrisiko-KI", "KI-Kompetenz", "Grundrechte-Folgenabschaetzung", "GPAI-Verhaltenskodex". For assessment workflows that produce a classification decision rather than a knowledge answer, offer to run a structured risk-tier classification in-session.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8632026年10月3日 更新

This skill builds a structured audit trail of an AI-assisted task: what the tool was asked to do, what materials it was given, what it produced, how the output was verified, and what was ultimately relied upon. It documents the workflow for supervision and later review without ruling on privilege or disclosure, so the record stays accurate rather than self-serving.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8632026年10月3日 更新

Use this skill when the user wants an AI governance, legal-risk, privacy, compliance, procurement, or vendor-risk review of an internal AI use case, an AI product feature, an LLM workflow, or a third-party AI vendor. The skill asks intake and clarifying questions first when facts or evidence are missing, identifies required documentation and missing evidence, maps the use case to AI governance frameworks and applicable legal domains, and produces a preliminary or final governance review with scorecards, findings, owners, remediation actions, and follow-up questions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8632026年10月3日 更新

Turn an interpretive-ambiguity audit of a legal text — contract, statute, regulation, or judicial opinion — into a polished deliverable. Produces a multi-page website (default), a single-page interactive site, a Microsoft Word document, a PowerPoint deck, or a LaTeX/PDF. Use whenever a user has a stress-test result, ambiguity audit, or "where will this be litigated" scenarios and wants to publish, present, or share them. Triggers on "publish the audit," "make a report from this," "turn this into a website / deck / brief / Word doc," "make a Netlify site," "build slides of these ambiguities," "render the scenarios," "package this stress test," "produce a LaTeX version," and similar. Pairs with the ambiguity-stress-test skill (the underlying analysis) but works on any structured or semi-structured ambiguity analysis. Visual design is opinionated but the user can override colors, fonts, and brand label. Most formats need Python and a writable filesystem; single-file HTML works where the host has neither.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8632026年10月3日 更新

Adversarially stress-tests a legal text — a contract, statute, regulation, or judicial opinion — for interpretive ambiguity: it finds the seams where the people governed by it will later disagree about what it means and turns each into a concrete dispute scenario with both sides' arguments, the likely outcome, and a fix. Use it whenever someone wants to pressure-test, red-team, audit, or find weak spots, loopholes, gaps, ambiguities, or drafting problems in a legal document; whenever a drafter wants to tighten a contract, statute, regulation, or opinion before it issues; whenever a litigator wants to mine an opinion or contract for arguments; or whenever someone hands over a legal text and asks where it will be fought over or for issue-spotting. Trigger it for contract review, statutory-ambiguity analysis, judicial-opinion scope analysis, and drafting QA — even if the user never says "stress-test" or "ambiguity."

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8632026年10月3日 更新

lawve-ai のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する