$ loading_
Review offer letters and restrictive covenants with jurisdiction-specific hiring checks.
Copy the install command and let the AI configure it · recommended for beginners
Please install the "hiring-review" skill from askskill: 1. Download https://raw.githubusercontent.com/anthropics/claude-for-legal/main/employment-legal/skills/hiring-review/SKILL.md 2. Save it as ~/.claude/skills/hiring-review/SKILL.md 3. Reload skills and tell me it's ready
Please review this offer letter, focusing on the employee’s work jurisdiction, exempt vs. non-exempt classification, restrictive covenants, and any issues that should be escalated.
A risk review organized by jurisdiction and clause type, highlighting issues and items needing further research.
We are hiring in a specific state. Can we include a non-compete in the offer documents? Please check based on the employee’s actual work location and note whether local rules require further research.
A preliminary assessment of restrictive covenant use in that jurisdiction, with flags for further research or escalation.
Please review this remote hire. The employee lives and works remotely in another state; confirm the governing jurisdiction and review the offer letter’s classification and restrictive covenants.
A hiring review based on the employee’s actual work location, covering jurisdiction, classification, and restrictive covenant risks.
HR or business teams can use it before sending an offer to confirm that review should be based on the employee’s actual work location rather than headquarters. It also helps identify first-hire situations in a new jurisdiction that may require extra research.
When an offer letter includes exempt/non-exempt language or restrictive covenants such as non-competes and confidentiality terms, this skill helps check whether those items need further local-law validation. It is especially useful for spotting issues that may require escalation.
Teams often misapply headquarters rules to remote or hybrid workers. This skill focuses on the employee’s location first and reminds reviewers to consider whether a choice-of-law clause in the offer letter may affect the analysis.
The README outlines the purpose, context loading, and workflow for hiring-review. Its core process is to determine the relevant jurisdiction based on where the employee actually works, then review the offer letter for exempt/non-exempt classification, restrictive covenants, and background check compliance. It also flags uncovered jurisdictions and escalation triggers, while emphasizing that jurisdiction-specific legal rules must be researched and cited during each review rather than treated as fixed built-in content.
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/employment-legal/CLAUDE.md → jurisdictional footprint, hiring review triggers, restrictive covenant policy.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.
Offer letters are mostly boilerplate until they're not. The jurisdiction check and the restrictive-covenant check are where this skill earns its keep. The skill does not state the law — every jurisdiction-specific rule is researched and cited at the time of review.
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/employment-legal/CLAUDE.md → jurisdictional footprint, hiring review triggers, restrictive
covenant policy, offer letter template location.
Prepend the work-product header from ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/employment-legal/CLAUDE.md → ## Outputs (it differs by user role — see ## Who's using this).
Where will this person work? Not where HQ is — where they are.
If remote: their home state/country governs. If hybrid: usually their home state, but check the offer letter's choice-of-law clause (may or may not hold up).
Check the jurisdiction table in ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/employment-legal/CLAUDE.md for this state/country. If it's
not in the table — new jurisdiction — flag that: "First hire in [state]. The
jurisdiction table doesn't cover this. Research needed before offer goes out."
Exempt or non-exempt? The offer should say, and the role should support it.
| Test | Check |
|---|---|
| Salary basis | Paid a fixed salary regardless of hours? |
| Salary level | Above the applicable federal and state thresholds? |
| Duties test | Does the role actually involve the exempt duties? |
Research before calling exemption. Identify the currently operative salary thresholds (federal and state — several states index annually and several have tiered thresholds by employer size) and the applicable duties test(s) for the role. Cite primary sources. Verify currency.
If the offer says exempt but the role description does not support the exempt duties — flag it. Misclassification is expensive.
If the offer includes a non-compete, customer non-solicit, employee non-solicit, or confidentiality/IP assignment:
Research enforceability before advising. For the employee's jurisdiction, identify the currently operative rules on each restrictive covenant in the offer. Non-compete enforceability in particular has shifted in multiple states in recent years through legislation, agency action, and litigation — do not rely on prior memory of which states permit non-competes. Note:
- The specific type of covenant (non-compete, customer non-solicit, employee non-solicit, confidentiality/trade-secret, IP assignment) — each has its own rules.
- Any salary or income threshold that conditions enforceability.
- Any notice, consideration, or garden-leave requirements.
- Any industry-specific carve-outs (e.g., healthcare, broadcasting).
…
It is used to review offer letters and restrictive covenants with a check of the employee’s work jurisdiction. The docs also indicate checks for classification, restrictive covenants, background check compliance, and escalation triggers.
Based on the provided docs, it looks to where the employee actually works, not where headquarters is located. For remote hires, that is usually the employee’s home state; for hybrid hires, the offer letter’s choice-of-law clause should also be checked.
No. The original description says substantive rules—such as covenant enforceability, pay transparency, salary-history limits, and exemption criteria—are researched for each hire rather than stored in advance.
Safely uninstall hub-installed community skills with confirmation and audit logging.
Temporarily disable or re-enable an installed community skill without deleting files.
Get a concise briefing on one legal matter's status, changes, deadlines, and risks.
Manage matter workspaces to separate, switch, and archive client contexts.
Search watched skill registries, preview matches, and inspect SKILL.md before installing.
Draft DMCA notices, triage incoming claims, and prepare counter-notice drafts.
Assess compliance requirements, approvals, and risks for proposed features or initiatives.
Review contracts, flag risks, and generate a separate redlined DOCX.
Review vendor contracts for first-pass risk flags before legal review.
Draft contracts, check state law requirements, and analyze legal risks.
Compare contract clauses against internal policy requirements and identify gaps.
Review contracts against playbooks with redlines, deviation flags, and impact analysis.