| name | collating-reviewer-feedback |
| title | collating-reviewer-feedback |
| description | Use when users say "collate comments", "combine reviewer markups", "compile tracked changes", "make a resolution checklist", or have multiple DOCX drafts, Word comments, redlines, partner/client markups, or external feedback to review without auto-merging. |
| author | LegalQuants |
| author_url | https://github.com/LegalQuants/lq-skills/tree/main/skills/collating-reviewer-feedback |
| license | Apache-2.0 |
| version | 0.1.0 |
| execution_mode | open |
| jurisdiction | general |
| practice | general |
| language | en |
| tags | ["docx","comments","track-changes","litigation","drafting","review-workflow"] |
collating-reviewer-feedback
When to Use
- Multiple reviewers returned Word documents with comments or tracked changes.
- The team needs to see every proposed edit, comment, and conflict in one place.
- The master document is court-facing, client-facing, or otherwise too risky to auto-merge.
- Feedback arrived outside Word, such as email, Teams, WhatsApp, phone notes, or conference comments, and needs to be added to the same resolution list.
Do not use this skill to automatically accept, reject, or merge changes into the master document. The output is a review checklist. The lawyer makes every document edit.
Audience and Work Shape
Audience: drafting and litigation lawyers, trainees, and paralegals who own or support the master document and understand Word comments/track changes.
Work shape: pattern-matched review with bounded extraction. The skill compiles, groups, and classifies reviewer inputs; it does not decide the legal or drafting outcome.
Legal Failure Modes
- Legal support, not legal advice: the checklist is a review aid. The responsible lawyer decides whether and how to amend the master.
- Privilege/confidentiality: privileged or confidential drafts must be processed only in an approved environment. Uploading drafts or extracted comments to an unapproved third-party AI surface may affect privilege or confidentiality.
- Accountability: every item defaults to
open or unresolved; a lawyer owns each accept/reject/defer decision.
Access Modes
This skill works in two practical modes:
- File mode - use uploaded or accessible DOCX files, reviewer versions, exports, or extracted Word markup.
- User-supplied text mode - use pasted comments, exported revision tables, screenshots, email notes, or manually supplied feedback.
If reviewer files or extracted markup are unavailable, prepare an intake checklist and do not claim to have collated Word comments or track changes.
How It Works
1. Establish the master and reviewer set
Identify:
- The master draft the lawyer will edit.
- Each reviewer version and reviewer name.
- Whether each file is a full draft, partial draft, or external notes.
- Any deadline or filing constraint that affects how conservative the review should be.
If the master is unclear, stop and ask. A checklist built against the wrong base document is not reliable.
2. Extract review items
For each reviewer version, extract:
- Word comments, including author, date, anchor text, and comment text.
