SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

BC legal-intake-conflict-check-agent

Ultra-high-ticket intake agent for Law Firms. Qualifies leads, performs preliminary conflict-of-interest checks, and books consultations. Hardened with ThumbGate to prevent illegal legal advice or unauthorized practice of law (UPL).

ClawHub Agent Skills author: IgorGanapolsky v1.0.0 MIT-0 5 files body ≈ 312 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai↗ analyzed 4 d ago

As a process C 54/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions

ProcedureAI and agentsInfrastructuretype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: OpenClaw Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
B
87/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
67
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
54/100
Has gaps
Result and completion w 14
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

  1. Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
For the model run — optional
  • Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
  • A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.

Guard findings · 0

✓ No critical or high findings

Files scanned: 5. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

Against the Agent Skills spec

  • warning description-no-when description does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when")
  • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "price"

Process rating: all ten parameters 54/100

  • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
  • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
  • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
  • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
  • 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (legal-intake-conflict-check-agent) differs from the folder (legal-intake-agent)
  • 55Failures and branches. 1 branches
  • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
  • 100Steps. 12 steps
  • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 312 tokens
  • 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
  • medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing

Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.

Quality signals

  • +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
  • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
  • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
  • +4No input/output examples
  • +1No license
  • +2Single-language instructions
  • +3Description length 232: enough signal without eating the budget
  • +4Structure: 4 headings
  • +3Step-by-step instructions: 12 items

Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 67.

External checks

ClawHub: suspicious
This legal intake skill is mostly coherent, but it asks law firms to route sensitive intake and conflict-check data through third-party tools without enough security, privacy, or access-control guidance.
LLM: suspicious (high) · VirusTotal: · 29 May 2026