Route a contract issue to the right approver per the escalation matrix in `config/local/codex-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md`, and draft the ask. Use when the user says "who needs to approve this", "escalate this", "does this need GC sign-off", "route this for approval", or when another skill finds an issue that exceeds the reviewer's authority.
Route a contract issue to the right approver per the escalation matrix in `config/local/codex-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md`, and draft the ask. Use when the user says "who needs to approve this", "escalate this", "does this need GC sign-off", "route this for approval", or when another skill finds an issue that exceeds the reviewer's authority.
Codex v1 local-input note: This migrated skill supports local files and pasted text by default. References to Drive, CLM IDs, Slack, Westlaw, iManage, Ironclad, eDiscovery, dockets, or other remote systems require a separately configured Codex connector/MCP server. When a connector is unavailable, ask for a local export, local file path, or pasted excerpts. If config/local/codex-for-legal/<practice>/CLAUDE.md is missing, ask the user to run the relevant cold-start-interview or customize skill and copy from config/templates/codex-for-legal/<practice>/CLAUDE.md.
$commercial-legal:escalation-flagger
Names the approver for a contract issue per the config/local/codex-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md escalation matrix and drafts the message so you're not writing "hey got a sec" at 5pm.
Instructions
Load config/local/codex-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md → Escalation section. If missing, say so — the practice profile needs editing.
Characterize the issue: dollar threshold / term deviation / automatic trigger / business decision.
Match to matrix, name the approver. Be specific — a person or role, not "legal leadership."
Draft the ask per the template below: what the contract says, what playbook says, options with recommendation, decision-by date.
Do not send. Draft it, show it, let the lawyer send.
Examples
$commercial-legal:escalation-flagger
The Acme MSA has uncapped liability — who approves and what do I say?
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 $commercial-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 config/local/codex-for-legal/commercial-legal/matters/<matter-slug>/. Never read another matter's files unless is .
Cross-matter context
on
Purpose
Every contracts team has an escalation matrix, written or not. This skill reads the written one (in config/local/codex-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md), matches a contract issue against it, names the approver, and drafts the ask so the lawyer isn't writing "hey do you have a sec" messages at 5pm.
Load the matrix
Which side? Before matching to the matrix, determine which side the company is on for the contract whose issue is being escalated. Usually obvious: if the counterparty is a vendor/supplier providing goods or services, you're purchasing-side. If the counterparty is a customer buying your product/service, you're sales-side. If it's not obvious, ask. Read the matching playbook section (### Sales-side playbook or ### Purchasing-side playbook) to evaluate whether the term is inside fallbacks or triggers an automatic escalation — a term that's fine on one side can be a hard-no on the other. Note which side in the drafted ask so the approver knows which playbook was applied.
Read config/local/codex-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md → ## Escalation. If it's missing or vague, say so — the cold-start interview should have captured this, and if it didn't, the practice profile needs editing.
Expected structure:
Can approve
Threshold
Escalates to
Via
Paralegal
Standard terms, <$50K
Counsel
Slack (connector optional; not enabled in v1)
Counsel
Non-standard but within fallbacks, <$500K
GC
Slack (connector optional; not enabled in v1) or email
GC
Everything else
CFO/Board
Meeting
Plus automatic escalation triggers — things that escalate regardless of dollar value. Typically: unlimited liability, IP assignment, anything on the "never accept" lists.
Workflow
Step 1: Characterize the issue
What's being escalated?
Dollar threshold: Contract value exceeds someone's approval authority
Term deviation: A term is outside the playbook fallbacks — someone more senior needs to decide whether to accept
Automatic trigger: One of the always-escalate items is present
Business decision: Not a legal call — needs the business owner, not legal leadership
Don't escalate things that are actually fine. If the term is within the fallbacks in config/local/codex-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md, it doesn't need to go up.
Step 2: Match to the matrix
Is the issue an automatic trigger?
→ YES: escalate to [person named for that trigger]
→ NO: continue
Is the contract value above the reviewer's threshold?
→ YES: escalate to whoever has authority at that dollar level
→ NO: continue
Is the term deviation outside all documented fallbacks?
→ YES: escalate to whoever can approve non-standard terms
→ NO: reviewer can approve — no escalation needed
Step 3: Name the approver
Be specific. Not "escalate to legal leadership" — name the person or role from config/local/codex-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md. If the matrix doesn't name anyone for this situation, say so: "The escalation matrix doesn't cover [situation]. Suggest asking [GC name] who owns this."
Step 4: Draft the ask
The approver should be able to decide from the message alone — no "let me pull up the contract."
**Escalating to:** [name]
**Via:** [Slack (connector optional; not enabled in v1) #channel / email / meeting — per `config/local/codex-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md`]
**Urgency:** [deadline if there is one]
---
Hey [name] —
Need your call on the [Counterparty] [agreement type]. [One sentence on deal context.]
**The issue:** [Plain English, one paragraph. What they want, why it's outside
our standard, what the risk actually is.]
**What the contract says:**> "[exact quote]"**What our playbook says:** [quote from `config/local/codex-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md`]
**Options:**1.**Accept** — [one line on why this might be okay]
2.**Push back with:** "[proposed counter-language]" — [one line on likely counterparty reaction]
3.**Walk** — [one line on whether that's realistic given the business context]
**My recommendation:** [which option and why, briefly]
**Need a decision by:** [date, if there is a deadline]
[Link to full review memo]
Step 5: Record the escalation
If this team uses a ticket system or [CLM] approval workflows, log it. If not, note in the review memo that the escalation was sent, to whom, and when. The next person who reads the memo should see the status.
Calibration: when in doubt, escalate with a note
The cost of an unnecessary escalation is ~30 seconds of the approver's time — they read, say "fine, proceed," and the record shows they saw it. The cost of a missed escalation is signing an unapproved term, which is a one-way door. The costs are not symmetric. When in doubt, escalate.
The calibration for what warrants escalation lives in config/local/codex-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md, not in this skill. Check the playbook's stated position, its fallbacks, and its "automatic escalation regardless of dollar value" list:
Clearly inside the fallback range: no escalation needed.
Clearly outside the range, or on the automatic-escalation list: escalate.
Uncertain — the term is ambiguous, novel, or arguably inside the range but the argument is a stretch: escalate anyway, and note the uncertainty explicitly. The draft flags the specific question the approver needs to decide and why the skill couldn't confidently place it inside the fallback. The approver narrows; the skill does not.
Do not suppress an escalation because over-escalation might train approvers to skim. That's an approver-experience problem the attorney solves by adjusting thresholds in the playbook, not a problem the skill solves by making its own subjective call on a term it's uncertain about.
If a term comes up that the playbook doesn't address, don't guess the threshold — ask the reviewing attorney whether this class of issue should escalate, and offer to record the answer in config/local/codex-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md so future reviews are consistent.
What this skill does not do
It does not approve anything. It routes.
It does not decide between the options. The draft includes a recommendation but the approver decides.
It does not send the escalation message — it drafts it. The lawyer sends it after reading.
