From commercial-legal-uk
Route a contract issue to the right approver per the escalation matrix in `~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/commercial-legal-uk/CLAUDE.md`, and draft the ask. Includes UK regulatory referral triggers (CMA, FCA, ICO, Companies House). Use when the user says "who needs to approve this", "escalate this", "does this need Head of Legal sign-off", "route this for approval", or when another skill finds an issue that exceeds the reviewer's authority.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/commercial-legal-uk:escalation-flagger [describe the issue, or reference a review memo][describe the issue, or reference a review memo]The summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Names the approver for a contract issue per the `~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/commercial-legal-uk/CLAUDE.md` escalation matrix and drafts the message so you're not writing "hey got a sec" at 5pm.
Names the approver for a contract issue per the ~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/commercial-legal-uk/CLAUDE.md escalation matrix and drafts the message so you're not writing "hey got a sec" at 5pm.
Load ~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/commercial-legal-uk/CLAUDE.md → Escalation section. If missing, say so — the practice profile needs editing.
Characterize the issue: pound threshold / term deviation / automatic trigger / regulatory 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 solicitor send.
/commercial-legal-uk:escalation-flagger
The Acme MSA has uncapped liability — who approves and what do I say?
/commercial-legal-uk:escalation-flagger
Reference: acme-review-memo.md
Issue: §8.2 indemnity carveouts
Matter context. Check ## Matter workspaces in the practice-level CLAUDE.md. If Enabled is ✗, skip the rest of this paragraph. If enabled and there is no active matter, ask: "Which matter is this for? Run /commercial-legal-uk:matter-workspace switch <slug> or say practice-level." Load the active matter's matter.md. Never read another matter's files unless Cross-matter context is on.
Every contracts team has an escalation matrix, written or not. This skill reads the written one, matches a contract issue against it, names the approver, and drafts the ask so the solicitor isn't writing "hey do you have a sec" messages at 5pm.
Which side? Before matching to the matrix, determine which side the company is on for the contract being escalated. Read the matching playbook section to evaluate whether the term is inside fallbacks or triggers an automatic escalation. Note which side in the drafted ask.
Read ~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/commercial-legal-uk/CLAUDE.md → ## Escalation. If it's missing or vague, say so.
Expected structure:
| Can approve | Threshold | Escalates to | Via |
|---|---|---|---|
| Paralegal | Standard terms, <£50K | Solicitor/Counsel | Slack |
| Solicitor/Counsel | Non-standard but within fallbacks, <£500K | Head of Legal/GC | Slack or email |
| Head of Legal/GC | Everything else | CFO/Board | Meeting |
Plus automatic escalation triggers — things that escalate regardless of pound value. Typically: unlimited liability, IP assignment, anything on the "never accept" lists, and UK regulatory triggers.
UK regulatory triggers (check for each):
[model knowledge — verify][model knowledge — verify][model knowledge — verify][model knowledge — verify]What's being escalated?
Don't escalate things that are actually fine. If the term is within the fallbacks in ~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/commercial-legal-uk/CLAUDE.md, it doesn't need to go up.
Is the issue a regulatory trigger?
→ YES: escalate to [solicitor with relevant regulatory expertise] AND flag for possible regulatory notification
→ NO: continue
Is the issue an automatic (internal) 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 pound 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
Be specific. Not "escalate to legal leadership" — name the person or role from ~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/commercial-legal-uk/CLAUDE.md. If the matrix doesn't name anyone for this situation, say so.
For regulatory triggers, name both the internal approver AND the relevant UK regulator/solicitor route:
The approver should be able to decide from the message alone — no "let me pull up the contract."
**Escalating to:** [name]
**Via:** [Slack #channel / email / meeting — per `~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/commercial-legal-uk/CLAUDE.md`]
**Urgency:** [deadline if there is one]
**Regulatory flag:** [if applicable — e.g., "Possible CMA Chapter I issue — competition solicitor review recommended before signature"]
---
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 under English contract law / UCTA 1977 / UK GDPR, what the risk actually is.]
**What the contract says:**
> "[exact quote]"
**What our playbook says:** [quote from `~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/commercial-legal-uk/CLAUDE.md`]
**Applicable UK law / regulatory context:**
[e.g., "Under UCTA 1977 s.3, this exclusion must satisfy the reasonableness test in a B2B standard-terms context. `[model knowledge — verify]`"
Or: "This arrangement may constitute a Chapter I infringement under the Competition Act 1998. `[model knowledge — verify]`"
Or: "UK GDPR Article 28 requires these sub-processor obligations to be included. `[model knowledge — verify]`"]
**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]
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 cost of an unnecessary escalation is ~30 seconds of the approver's time. The cost of a missed escalation is signing an unapproved term or missing a regulatory notification window. The costs are not symmetric. When in doubt, escalate.
The calibration for what warrants escalation lives in ~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/commercial-legal-uk/CLAUDE.md, not in this skill. Check the playbook's stated position, its fallbacks, and its "automatic escalation regardless of contract value" list.
For regulatory triggers: err strongly on the side of escalation. A missed ICO notification has a 4-week window (72 hours for data breach notification — UK GDPR Article 33). A missed Companies House charge registration renders the charge void. These deadlines do not have fallbacks.
Do not suppress an escalation because over-escalation might train approvers to skim. That's an approver-experience problem the solicitor solves by adjusting thresholds in the playbook.
If a term comes up that the playbook doesn't address, don't guess the threshold — ask the reviewing solicitor whether this class of issue should escalate, and offer to record the answer in ~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/commercial-legal-uk/CLAUDE.md.
npx claudepluginhub uk-agents/uk-legal-plugins --plugin commercial-legal-ukCreates, edits, and optimizes skills for Claude Code, including drafting, evaluating with test prompts, iterating on performance, and improving skill descriptions for better triggering accuracy.