← LeaderboardThe Skill Leaderboard

legal-mdl-audit-adrian-lerer

Skill file skills/legal-mdl-audit-adrian-lerer/SKILL.md in lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills. Read the publisher’s upstream source.

Description awaits a fresh source check.

Published by lawve-ai ↗lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills

Try your first task

legal-mdl-audit-ignacio-adrian-lerer

Start a fresh conversation. Replace the highlighted placeholders.

Use legal-mdl-audit-ignacio-adrian-lerer to audit [legal AI output or workflow] and return a verdict, complexity drivers, visible uncertainties, simplification opportunities, and safeguards that must remain.

Required inputs

  • [legal AI output or workflow]

User-approved starter prompt based on a pinned source version; check current skill requirements before running. Task evidence ↗

SKILL.md

name: "legal-mdl-audit-ignacio-adrian-lerer"description: "Audits legal AI outputs and workflows for honest compression: unnecessary complexity, false simplicity, excessive caveats, hidden uncertainty and poor cost per legally acceptable output."license: agpl-3.0metadata:   author: "Ignacio Adrián Lerer"  license: "agpl-3.0"  version: "2026-05-31"

Legal MDL Audit

What this skill does

This skill reviews whether a legal AI answer, prompt, workflow, benchmark result, contract review, memo, compliance report, or agent chain is as simple as it can safely be.

It is inspired by Minimum Description Length: good legal reasoning should explain more with less structure, but never by hiding material uncertainty.

Audit categories

Classify the material as:

  • APPROVE: lean and still legally safe.
  • APPROVE WITH CONSTRAINTS: complexity is justified, but reliance needs stated limits.
  • REWRITE: the output is too complex, repetitive, expensive, or hard to audit.
  • QUARANTINE: the output is falsely simple and hides material uncertainty.

Checklist

Review:

  1. Rules: how many legal propositions are needed?
  2. Exceptions: how many carve-outs or qualifications are doing real work?
  3. Conditions: what facts, dates, forums, sources or procedural states must hold?
  4. Sources: are citations enough, excessive, or missing?
  5. Uncertainty: what must remain visible?
  6. Workflow cost: how many model/tool/human steps were needed?
  7. Output value: did added complexity improve legal acceptability?

Output format

Return:

  1. Verdict.
  2. Complexity drivers.
  3. Hidden uncertainty or omitted hard cases.
  4. What can be simplified.
  5. What must not be removed.
  6. Safer shorter version, if requested.

Rules

  • Do not reward short answers that erase legal uncertainty.
  • Do not reward long answers that add caveats without improving reliance.
  • Prefer cost per legally acceptable output over cost per token or API call.
  • Preserve source gaps, authority boundaries and human-review gates.