$ loading_
Classify a proposed worker engagement — employee, IC, temp, or vendor — by running the applicable jurisdiction tests and flagging misclassification gaps between the intended arrangement and what the facts actually support. Prospective use only. Use when someone says "we want to bring on a contractor", "is this a vendor or a temp", "how should we classify this person", or describes a proposed working arrangement.
复制安装指令，让 AI 自动完成配置 · 推荐新手
请帮我安装 askskill 上的 "worker-classification" 技能： 1. 下载 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/anthropics/claude-for-legal/main/employment-legal/skills/worker-classification/SKILL.md 2. 保存为 ~/.claude/skills/worker-classification/SKILL.md 3. 装好后重载技能，告诉我可以用了
Runs the applicable classification tests for the jurisdiction and flags where the proposed arrangement doesn't match the structure you're trying to use. Prospective only — for existing relationships, consult counsel.
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/employment-legal/CLAUDE.md → jurisdictional footprint, escalation table./employment-legal:worker-classification
We want to bring on a data scientist for 6 months, working out of our
SF office, using our tools, embedded in our analytics team.
/employment-legal:worker-classification
Is our recruiter contractor arrangement okay? She works exclusively for
us, sets her own hours, uses her own laptop, project fee per placement.
/employment-legal:worker-classification
(skill will ask for details)
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 /employment-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 ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/employment-legal/matters/<matter-slug>/. Never read another matter's files unless Cross-matter context is on.
The most expensive classification decision is the one nobody made consciously. Someone describes what they want ("a contractor"), the engagement starts, and two years later the facts look like employment. This skill walks the applicable tests on the proposed arrangement before it starts — and tells you when what you're describing doesn't match the structure you're trying to use.
This skill teaches the reasoning pattern. It does not state the law. Every test formulation, statutory citation, threshold, and carve-out must come from current research for the applicable jurisdiction.
This skill analyzes a PROPOSED engagement before the work starts. Before any substantive intake (Step 1), ask:
Has this work already started? Is the worker currently engaged, or have they been performing work under this arrangement for any period of time (days, weeks, months, or years)?
If the answer is yes — the engagement already exists, in any form, for any duration — STOP. Do not proceed to Step 1 intake. Classifying an existing arrangement is not a planning exercise; it's a liability assessment with remediation implications: back pay (OT, meal/rest premiums), unpaid employer-side payroll tax, benefits eligibility that was denied, unemployment and workers' comp back-exposure, state penalties (in CA, PAGA), IRS § 530 relief analysis, and — in strict-test jurisdictions with ongoing work — the prospective exposure of letting it run another day. That analysis is privileged, led by counsel, and coupled with a remediation plan.
Output exactly this block and wait for a response:
Out of scope — existing arrangement.
…
Review and approve (or reject) pending playbook update proposals from the playbook-monitor agent and apply approved changes to the practice profile. Use when the playbook-monitor agent has surfaced proposals, when the user says "review playbook proposals", "what playbook updates are pending", or wants to step through deviation-driven playbook changes.
Reference: review of SaaS subscription agreements with attention to the terms that matter most in subscription deals — auto-renewal mechanics, price escalation, data portability, uptime SLAs, and subprocessor rights. Loaded by /commercial-legal:review when a SaaS or subscription agreement is detected.
Drafts board or committee meeting minutes in your house format. Auto-detects upcoming board and committee meetings from your calendar, asks for the agenda and any slides or pre-read materials, and produces a complete draft in the format learned from your seed minutes. Also handles written consents in lieu of meetings. Trigger: "board minutes", "draft minutes", "upcoming board meeting", "committee minutes", "written consent", or calendar detection of an upcoming board or committee event.
Aggregate diligence findings into a deal team briefing at the right altitude for the audience — exec summary for leadership, working summary for the team. Use when user says "brief the deal team", "what's the state of diligence", "summarize findings for [audience]", "deal update", or on the briefing cadence.
Entity compliance tracker — initialize, report upcoming deadlines, update status, run health audit, export to CSV. Maintains a compliance-tracker.yaml built from the entity table, calculates filing deadlines by entity and jurisdiction, and surfaces what's due in the next 30/60/90 days. Use when user says "entity compliance", "filing deadlines", "annual reports due", "entity tracker", "what filings are due", "entity health", or "good standing".
Trace how a contract has changed across its base agreement and all amendments — either a summary of all changes over time, or a provision trace for a specific clause. Use when the user says "what changed in this contract over time", "show me the amendment history", "where's the latest [clause]", "how has [provision] evolved", or uploads multiple versions of an agreement.