菜单
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.
默认使用会先检查来源的 Prompt；你也可以切换为直接命令，或下载本地副本。
决定是否安装前，请先阅读 SKILL.md，以及 SkillsMP 当前展示的配套文件。
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
直接命令不会经过审查 Prompt；运行前请先检查来源。
npx skills add https://github.com/ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open --skill collating-reviewer-feedback命令会保持在同一行。复制前请横向滚动并检查完整内容。
想先保存到本地？可下载 SkillsMP 当前能够提供的文件。
Use when retrieving arbitration institutional rules (ICC, LCIA, SCC, SIAC, HKIAC, VIAC, МКАС/МАК при ТПП України, UNCITRAL) — fetching current version, verifying redaction applicable to the date of arbitration agreement, constructing URLs for official rule texts
Use when choosing the Polish legal regime for letters, requests, applications, complaints, petitions, public-information requests, KPA filings, PPSA complaints, RODO access requests, registry extracts, court-file access, tax/ZUS/cudzoziemcy/USC procedures, or professional lawyer letters. Prevents mixing UDIP, KPA, PPSA, RODO, registry, special-procedure, and advocate/radca letter regimes.
Use when preparing applications for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Poland, applications for setting aside arbitral awards under KPC art. 1205–1211, or opposing such applications — mapping Article V of the 1958 New York Convention to art. 1214–1215 of the Polish KPC, identifying grounds for refusal, structuring public policy arguments
正在显示 SKILL.md
基于 SOC 职业分类
| 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"] |
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: 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.
open or unresolved; a lawyer owns each accept/reject/defer decision.This skill works in two practical modes:
If reviewer files or extracted markup are unavailable, prepare an intake checklist and do not claim to have collated Word comments or track changes.
Identify:
If the master is unclear, stop and ask. A checklist built against the wrong base document is not reliable.
For each reviewer version, extract:
Preserve reviewer identity and original proposed wording exactly. Do not collapse two reviewers into one anonymous note unless the user asks for anonymization. If a table, text box, footnote, field, or other complex Word structure cannot be extracted reliably, create a needs_manual_review item rather than omitting it.
Group items by likely paragraph or clause. Use approximate matching only to organize the review. If matching is uncertain, mark the item as location_uncertain.
Within each group, classify:
comment - reviewer comment without text change.insertion - proposed added text.deletion - proposed removed text.replacement - deletion and insertion that appear paired.whole-paragraph-change - inserted or deleted paragraph.external-note - manually added feedback.conflict - reviewers propose incompatible outcomes.Output a resolution checklist with one row per item:
| Field | Meaning |
|---|---|
id | Stable item id |
source_file | reviewer file or external note source |
source_item_id | Word comment id, revision id, or external note id where available |
source_timestamp | comment/revision/note date where available |
location | paragraph, heading, clause, or best available anchor |
location_confidence | exact, approximate, location_uncertain, or manual_review |
reviewer | source reviewer or external source |
type | classification above |
proposal | exact proposed text or comment |
context | nearby master text |
status | open, accepted, rejected, or deferred |
notes | lawyer's resolution note |
Keep the default status open. Do not infer acceptance from reviewer seniority.
Use location_confidence as the operative confidence band: exact, approximate, location_uncertain, or manual_review. Anything affecting tables, footnotes, text boxes, numbering, duplicated clauses, or heavily reworked paragraphs should default down to location_uncertain or manual_review.
Surface separately:
Recommended outputs:
The final step is always: the lawyer edits the master document in Word and checks off the resolution list.
Stop and route to the responsible lawyer when a conflict turns on legal substance, including privilege waiver, settlement strategy, regulatory exposure, pleaded relief/remedies, limitation, admissions, or client instructions. Do not classify these as ordinary drafting conflicts.
User: "I have partner, client, and associate comments on the same draft. Can you combine them?"
Response pattern:
For a compact output pattern, see examples/output.md.
For the detailed item taxonomy, conflict semantics, and paragraph-matching model, see references/reviewer-markup-model.md.