Skip to content
Agentmart
Submit a tool

legal-transition-audit-ignacio-adrian-lerer

Audits the transition from legal AI output to reliance, recommendation, execution, or real-world commitment.

Skill by Ignacio Adrián Lerer

IndexedAGPL-3.0★ 895
Write a review

Install

Works with Claude Code, Claude apps, Codex, Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot, VS Code, OpenCode, Goose, Windsurf. Read the repository before you give any tool access to your data.

npx agentmarket install skill/lawve-ai-legal-transition-audit-ignacio-adrian-lerer

Asks which of your tools to add it to (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, VS Code, Windsurf, Gemini CLI, Claude Desktop) and shows the change first. See https://agentmart.dev/cli.

Get the weekly diff

The weekly diff: one email a week with new agent tools, notable updates and grade changes, plus security alerts for tools you follow. Double opt-in, one-click unsubscribe.

We use your email only for this newsletter. Privacy

About

Audits the transition from legal AI output to reliance, recommendation, execution, or real-world commitment. Use it before an AI-generated analysis, memo, contract review, compliance finding, or workflow output is acted upon to check whether authority, evidence, mandate, uncertainty, procedure, and review conditions remain sufficient.

Use cases: documents, security, productivity, legal

No reviews yet. Installed it? Reviews come from verified installers only. How reviews work

Permissions

What this skill can do and what it asks for, from its SKILL.md. Checked Oct 25, 2026.

Tools
No tools found
Secrets
None asked for
Install scripts
None found

Network hosts it talks to 1

  • codeload.github.com · found in install command

Files it touches

  • ~/.claude/skills/legal-transition-audit-ignacio-adrian-lerer

What's inside

Skill name
legal-transition-audit-ignacio-adrian-lerer
Description
Audits the transition from legal AI output to reliance, recommendation, execution, or real-world commitment. Use it before an AI-generated analysis, memo, contract review, compliance finding, or workflow output is acted upon to check whether authority, evidence, mandate, uncertainty, procedure, and review conditions remain sufficient.
License
AGPL-3.0
Metadata
author: Ignacio Adrián Lerer · license: agpl-3.0 · version: 2026-06-03
Instructions
159 lines in SKILL.md · view on GitHub

Agent Skills spec issues

  • name: "legal-transition-audit-ignacio-adrian-lerer" does not match folder "legal-transition-audit-adrian-lerer"

Files (2)

  • README.md
  • SKILL.md

SKILL.md (first lines)

# Legal Transition Audit

## What This Skill Does

This skill audits the step between legal AI output and real-world consequence.

It is designed for the moment when an analysis may become reliance, a recommendation may become action, or an automated workflow may affect rights, duties, deadlines, assets, filings, communications, or institutional decisions.

It does not replace legal analysis. It governs the transition from analysis to action.

## Core Question

Should this output be allowed to move into reliance, recommendation, execution, or commitment now?

## Transition States

Use one of these states:

- `PROCEED`: the transition is supported and may move forward.
- `QUALIFY`: the output may be used only with visible limits, caveats, or assumptions.
- `ESCALATE`: the transition requires human, specialist, client, institutional, or procedural review.
- `REFUSE`: the transition must not occur because material conditions are missing or invalid.

## Audit Protocol

### 1. Identify the Proposed Transition

State what movement is being proposed:

- draft to final;
- analysis to recommendation;
- recommendation to client advice;
- review to approval;
- approval to signature;
- finding to filing;
- output to automated execution;
- internal assessment to external communication;
- legal conclusion to operational or financial consequence.

If no transition is specified, classify the output as analysis only.

### 2. Consequence Mapping

Identify what changes if the transition occurs:

- rights, duties, liabilities, deadlines, payments, assets, or records;
- court, regulator, client, counterparty, employee, consumer, shareholder, or public-facing effect;
- irreversible or difficult-to-reverse consequence;
- reputational, compliance, privilege, confidentiality, or procedural impact.

The stronger the consequence, the stronger the transition controls must be.

### 3. Evidence Sufficiency

Check whether the output has enough evidentiary support for the proposed transition.

Ask:

- Are source documents, legal authorities, and factual premises identified?
- Are material citations current and verifiable?
- Are missing facts visible?
- Are assumptions separated from verified facts?
- Are conflicts or contrary authorities disclosed?
- Is the conclusion stronger than the evidence permits?

If evidence is insufficient, the output may not proceed without qualification, escalation, or refusal.

### 4. Authority and Mandate

Check whether the system, user, or institution has authority to make the transition.

Ask:

- Who authorized the transition?
- What is the source and scope of the mandate?
- Does the mandate cover this jurisdiction, matter, client, entity, risk, or action?
- Has authority expired, been revoked, exceeded, or become contested?
- Does the transition require approval by a lawyer, client, board, supervisor, court, regulator, or other institutional actor?

Do not allow an output to create authority for itself.

### 5. Procedure and Timing

Check whether procedural conditions remain satisfied at the moment of transition.

Ask:

- Are deadlines, limitation periods, procedural steps, notices, approvals, or waiting periods still valid?
- Has the legal or factual context changed since the output was generated?
- Has a new document, instruction, evidence item, policy, or authority superseded the basis of the output?
- Is the transition occurring after interruption, handoff, delegation, restoration, or reentry?

If conditions have changed, re-test before action.

### 6. Uncertainty and Contestability

Check whether uncertainty remains visible and contestable before reliance.

Material uncertainty includes:

- unresolved factual disputes;
- ambiguous legal standards;
- conflicting authorities;
- stale or unverified sources;
- jurisdictional mismatch;
- unclear client objectives;
- unresolved privilege or confidentiality issue;
- model/tool limitations that affect the conclusion.

If uncertainty is hidden by fluent prose, do not proceed.

### 7. Transition Decision

Assign a transition state:

- `PROCEED` only if evidence, authority, procedure, timing, and uncertainty controls are sufficient.
- `QUALIFY` if the output may be used with explicit limits.
- `ESCALATE` if a responsible person or institution must decide.
- `REFUSE` if the transition would be unsupported, unauthorized, procedurally defective, or materially misleading.

From lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills, AGPL-3.0.

More from lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills

Signals

Stars
895
Forks
119
Open issues
7
Last commit (this folder)
Jul 30, 2026 (3 months ago)

From GitHub (fetched Oct 24, 2026).

Details

Version
2026-06-03
License
AGPL-3.0
Website
lawve.ai
First seen
Oct 24, 2026
Last checked
Oct 24, 2026

More from Ignacio Adrián Lerer

Cite this page

legal-transition-audit-ignacio-adrian-lerer skill. Agent Mart. https://agentmart.dev/skills/lawve-ai-legal-transition-audit-ignacio-adrian-lerer (last updated 2026-10-24)