Install
$ agentstack add skill-anylegal-ai-anylegal-oss-qa ✓ scanned · ✓ verified — works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
About
Quality Assurance Review
When to Use
Use this skill when:
- The user says /qa
- A matter is transitioning from WORKING to REVIEW
- Counsel requests a fresh QA pass after a return
- The agent has finished editing a document and needs verification
Process
1. Inventory the Workspace
Call list_documents to see all files. Identify:
- The primary deliverable (the main contract/document being worked on)
- The intake summary (
intake_*.md) for client instructions - Any playbook files (
Playbook/*.md,anylegal.md) - Any research notes or memos created during the work
- The original uploaded document (if different from the deliverable)
2. Template Compliance Check
Read the deliverable with read_document. Check:
- [ ] Document structure matches the expected template format
- [ ] Clause numbering is sequential and correct
- [ ] Cross-references (to other clauses, schedules, annexes) are accurate
- [ ] Defined terms are used consistently (capitalization, spelling)
- [ ] No placeholder text remains (e.g., "[INSERT]", "TBD", "XXX")
- [ ] Standard boilerplate clauses are present (severability, governing law, etc.)
3. Factual Accuracy Check
Verify legal facts in the document:
- [ ] Jurisdiction references are correct for the matter type
- [ ] Legal citations (statutes, regulations, case law) are valid — use
web_searchto spot-check - [ ] Dates, deadlines, and time periods are internally consistent
- [ ] Party names and entity types are correct throughout
- [ ] Currency and monetary amounts are consistent
4. Completeness Check
Read the intake summary and compare against the deliverable:
- [ ] All client instructions from intake have been addressed
- [ ] All documents mentioned in intake have been reviewed/incorporated
- [ ] No sections are left unfinished or contain TODO markers
- [ ] If multi-jurisdictional, all specified jurisdictions are covered
5. Track Changes Review
Use run_code (default Python) with lxml to count tracked changes (w:ins, w:del), extract authors, and assess edit scope. Then:
- [ ] Every insertion has a clear purpose (improves protection, fixes error, adds required clause)
- [ ] Every deletion is justified (removes risk, corrects error, simplifies)
- [ ] No unintended formatting-only changes
- [ ] Tracked changes are clean (no stacked/overlapping revisions)
- [ ] Total edit count is proportionate to the matter scope
6. Research Audit
If research notes or memos exist:
- [ ] Web sources cited are accessible and authoritative
- [ ] Citations use
[[N]](URL)format with working URLs - [ ] Legal positions are supported by the cited sources
- [ ] No hallucinated or outdated legal references
Use web_search and web_fetch to spot-check 2-3 key citations.
7. Generate QA Report
Create a qa_.md document with:
# QA Report — [Matter Title]
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Reviewer:** Agent QA
**Document:** [deliverable filename]
## Summary
[1-2 sentence overall assessment]
## Checklist
### Template Compliance
- [x] Structure matches template
- [x] Numbering correct
...
### Factual Accuracy
- [x] Jurisdictions correct
...
### Completeness
- [x] All client instructions addressed
...
### Track Changes
- [x] All edits justified
...
### Research Audit
- [x] Citations verified
...
## Issues Found
[List any issues, with severity: CRITICAL / WARNING / INFO]
## Verdict
[PASS / PASS WITH WARNINGS / FAIL]
Guidelines
- Be thorough but proportionate — a simple NDA review needs less scrutiny than a cross-border compliance matter
- If you find CRITICAL issues, clearly flag them — these block approval
- WARNING issues should be noted but don't necessarily block approval
- Always generate the QA report even if everything passes — the report is the audit trail
- If the original document is available, use
compareto verify the edit scope makes sense - Do not modify the deliverable during QA — only read and report
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: anylegal-ai
- Source: anylegal-ai/anylegal-oss
- License: MIT
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet — be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.