Turn due diligence findings, collected during a deal review, into briefings for executives, deal leads, or working teams. Highlight material issues, changes since the previous update, review progress, and decisions needed at the level each audience requires.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Aggregate diligence findings into a deal team briefing at the right altitude for the audience — exec summary for leadership, working summary for the team. Use when user says "brief the deal team", "what's the state of diligence", "summarize findings for [audience]", "deal update", or on the briefing cadence.
安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。
Matter context. Check ## Matter workspaces in the practice-level CLAUDE.md. If Enabled is ✗ (the default for in-house users), skip the rest of this paragraph — skills use practice-level context and the matter machinery is invisible. If enabled and there is no active matter, ask: "Which matter is this for? Run /corporate-legal:matter-workspace switch <slug> or say practice-level." Load the active matter's matter.md for matter-specific context and overrides. Write outputs to the matter folder at ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/corporate-legal/matters/<matter-slug>/. Never read another matter's files unless Cross-matter context is on.
The deal lead doesn't read 200 findings. They read: what's material, what changed since last brief, what needs a decision. This skill compresses the diligence output to the right level for the reader.
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/corporate-legal/CLAUDE.md → Deal team briefing (cadence, format, what the business reads)~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/corporate-legal/deals/[code]/deal-context.md → deal lead, timelinePer ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/corporate-legal/CLAUDE.md — what the business reads vs. what's for the file. Default tiers:
| Audience | Gets | Doesn't get |
|---|---|---|
| Board / exec sponsor | Top 3-5 material issues, price/structure impact, decision items | Category detail, green findings, process |
| Deal lead | All reds, all yellows, progress, decision items, next steps | Green finding detail |
| Working team | Everything — full findings, status by category, gaps | Nothing withheld |
Ask which tier if not obvious.
[WORK-PRODUCT HEADER — per plugin config ## Outputs — differs by role; see `## Who's using this`]
> This brief aggregates privileged diligence findings and inherits the sources' privilege and confidentiality status. Distribution beyond the privilege circle (including to broader business teams) can waive privilege — confirm the distribution list matches the privilege circle before sending.
# [Deal code] — Diligence Brief — [date]
**Status:** [On track / Issues identified / Material findings]
**Coverage:** [X]% of VDR reviewed
## Material findings
[3-5 max. One paragraph each. What it is, why it matters to the deal, what
we're doing about it.]
## Decisions needed
- [ ] [Specific decision — price adjustment, indemnity ask, walk-away trigger]
— [who decides] — [by when]
## Since last brief
[What changed. New findings, findings resolved, coverage progress.]
Same as above plus:
## All open issues by category
### 🔴 Red
[Finding title + one-line — link to full finding for detail]
### 🟡 Yellow
[same]
## Progress
| Category | Docs reviewed | Coverage | Reds | Yellows | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [name] | [N/M] | [%] | [N] | [N] | [Complete / In progress / Blocked] |
## Gaps and follow-ups
- [Supplemental request items outstanding]
- [Questions to management]
## Next 72 hours
[What's getting reviewed, what briefings are scheduled]
Full finding detail. Same structure as above but every finding gets its full house-format block, not a one-liner.
If this is a recurring brief (per ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/corporate-legal/CLAUDE.md cadence), lead with what changed:
Deal leads care more about movement than state. "Still 12 yellows" is less useful than "2 new yellows, 3 resolved."
End with the next-steps decision tree per CLAUDE.md ## Outputs. Customize the options to what this skill just produced — the five default branches (draft the X, escalate, get more facts, watch and wait, something else) are a starting point, not a lock-in. The tree is the output; the lawyer picks.
还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。
无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问，或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。
还没有评论。来写第一条吧。
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.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
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.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
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.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
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.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
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.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
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.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。