Back to Details

escalation-flagger

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

/escalation-flagger

/escalation-flagger

Names the approver for a contract issue per the 
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md
escalation matrix and drafts the message so you're not writing "hey got a sec" at 5pm.
根据
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md
中的升级矩阵，确定合同问题的审批人，并起草沟通消息，让你不用在下午5点还写“嘿，有空吗”这样的内容。

Instructions

说明

  1. Load 
    ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md
     → Escalation section. If missing, say so — the practice profile needs editing.
  2. Characterize the issue: dollar threshold / term deviation / automatic trigger / business decision.
  3. Match to matrix, name the approver. Be specific — a person or role, not "legal leadership."
  4. Draft the ask per the template below: what the contract says, what playbook says, options with recommendation, decision-by date.
  5. Do not send. Draft it, show it, let the lawyer send.
  1. 加载
    ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md
     → 升级部分。如果缺失，请告知——需要编辑业务配置文件。
  2. 界定问题类型：金额阈值/条款偏差/自动触发项/业务决策。
  3. 匹配矩阵，明确审批人。需具体到个人或岗位，而非“法律领导层”。
  4. 按照以下模板起草审批请求：合同内容、手册要求、可选方案及建议、决策截止日期。
  5. 请勿发送。仅起草并展示，由律师发送。

Examples

示例

/commercial-legal:escalation-flagger
The Acme MSA has uncapped liability — who approves and what do I say?
/commercial-legal:escalation-flagger
Reference: acme-review-memo.md
Issue: §8.2 indemnity carveouts
/commercial-legal:escalation-flagger
Acme公司的MSA包含无限责任条款——谁来审批，我该怎么说？
/commercial-legal:escalation-flagger
参考文件：acme-review-memo.md
问题：第8.2条赔偿责任例外条款

Matter context

事项上下文

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 
/commercial-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/commercial-legal/matters/<matter-slug>/
. Never read another matter's files unless 
Cross-matter context
is 
on
.
事项上下文。查看业务级CLAUDE.md中的
## Matter workspaces
部分。如果“Enabled”为
✗
（内部用户默认设置），则跳过本段剩余内容——Skill将使用业务级上下文，事项机制不可见。如果已启用且无活跃事项，请询问：“这属于哪个事项？运行
/commercial-legal:matter-workspace switch <slug>
或选择
practice-level
。”加载活跃事项的
matter.md
文件以获取事项特定上下文和覆盖规则。将输出写入事项文件夹
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/commercial-legal/matters/<matter-slug>/
。除非“Cross-matter context”为“on”，否则请勿读取其他事项的文件。

Purpose

用途

Every contracts team has an escalation matrix, written or not. This skill reads the written one (in 
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md
), matches a contract issue against it, names the approver, and drafts the ask so the lawyer isn't writing "hey do you have a sec" messages at 5pm.
每个合同团队都有一套升级矩阵，无论是否书面化。本Skill读取书面矩阵（位于
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md
），将合同问题与矩阵匹配，确定审批人，并起草审批请求，让律师不用在下午5点还写“嘿，你有空吗”这样的消息。

Load the matrix

加载矩阵

Which side? Before matching to the matrix, determine which side the company is on for the contract whose issue is being escalated. Usually obvious: if the counterparty is a vendor/supplier providing goods or services, you're purchasing-side. If the counterparty is a customer buying your product/service, you're sales-side. If it's not obvious, ask. Read the matching playbook section (
### Sales-side playbook
or 
### Purchasing-side playbook
) to evaluate whether the term is inside fallbacks or triggers an automatic escalation — a term that's fine on one side can be a hard-no on the other. Note which side in the drafted ask so the approver knows which playbook was applied.
Read 
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md
→ 
## Escalation
. If it's missing or vague, say so — the cold-start interview should have captured this, and if it didn't, the practice profile needs editing.
Expected structure:
Can approveThresholdEscalates toVia
ParalegalStandard terms, <$50KCounselSlack
CounselNon-standard but within fallbacks, <$500KGCSlack or email
GCEverything elseCFO/BoardMeeting
Plus automatic escalation triggers — things that escalate regardless of dollar value. Typically: unlimited liability, IP assignment, anything on the "never accept" lists.
**我方立场？**在匹配矩阵之前，确定公司在该合同中的立场。通常很明显：如果对方是提供商品或服务的供应商，我方为采购方；如果对方是购买我方产品/服务的客户，我方为销售方。如果不明确，请询问。阅读对应的手册章节（
### Sales-side playbook
或
### Purchasing-side playbook
），评估条款是否在允许范围内或触发自动升级——某一条款在一方没问题，在另一方可能是绝对不能接受的。在起草的请求中注明我方立场，以便审批人知晓适用的手册。
读取
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md
→ 
## Escalation
部分。如果缺失或表述模糊，请告知——冷启动访谈应已收集此信息，若未收集，则需要编辑业务配置文件。
预期结构：
可审批人员阈值升级至沟通方式
律师助理标准条款，金额<$50K法律顾问Slack
法律顾问非标准但在允许范围内，金额<$500KGCSlack或邮件
GC所有其他情况CFO/董事会会议
此外还有自动升级触发项——无论金额多少都需升级的事项。通常包括：无限责任、知识产权转让、“绝不接受”列表中的任何内容。

Workflow

工作流程

Step 1: Characterize the issue

步骤1：界定问题类型

What's being escalated?
  • Dollar threshold: Contract value exceeds someone's approval authority
  • Term deviation: A term is outside the playbook fallbacks — someone more senior needs to decide whether to accept
  • Automatic trigger: One of the always-escalate items is present
  • Business decision: Not a legal call — needs the business owner, not legal leadership
Don't escalate things that are actually fine. If the term is within the fallbacks in 
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md
, it doesn't need to go up.
需要升级的是什么问题？
  • 金额阈值：合同金额超出某人员的审批权限
  • 条款偏差：条款超出手册允许范围——需要更高级别的人员决定是否接受
  • 自动触发项：存在需强制升级的事项
  • 业务决策：非法律问题——需要业务负责人，而非法律领导层
不要升级实际上没问题的事项。如果条款在
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md
的允许范围内，则无需升级。

Step 2: Match to the matrix

步骤2：匹配矩阵

Is the issue an automatic 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 dollar 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
该问题是否为自动触发项？
  → 是：升级至[该触发项对应的人员]
  → 否：继续

合同金额是否超出审核人员的阈值？
  → 是：升级至对应金额级别有审批权限的人员
  → 否：继续

条款偏差是否超出所有已记录的允许范围？
  → 是：升级至可审批非标准条款的人员
  → 否：审核人员可审批——无需升级

Step 3: Name the approver

步骤3：明确审批人

Be specific. Not "escalate to legal leadership" — name the person or role from 
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md
. If the matrix doesn't name anyone for this situation, say so: "The escalation matrix doesn't cover [situation]. Suggest asking [GC name] who owns this."
需具体明确。不要写“升级至法律领导层”——应从
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md
中指定个人或岗位。如果矩阵未覆盖该情况，请告知：“升级矩阵未涵盖[该情况]。建议询问[GC姓名]谁负责此事。”

Step 4: Draft the ask

步骤4：起草审批请求

The approver should be able to decide from the message alone — no "let me pull up the contract."
markdown
**Escalating to:** [name]
**Via:** [Slack #channel / email / meeting — per `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md`]
**Urgency:** [deadline if there is one]

---

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, what the risk actually is.]

**What the contract says:**
> "[exact quote]"

**What our playbook says:** [quote from `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md`]

**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]
审批人应仅通过消息即可做出决定——无需“让我调出合同看看”。
markdown
**升级至：** [姓名]
**沟通方式：** [Slack频道 / 邮件 / 会议 — 依据`~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md`]
**紧急程度：** [如有截止日期请注明]

---

嗨[姓名]：

需要您对[对方公司]的[协议类型]做出决策。[一句话说明交易背景。]

**问题：** [用通俗易懂的语言写一段。对方的诉求是什么，为何超出我方标准，实际风险是什么。]

**合同内容：**
> "[准确引用条款]"

**我方手册要求：** [引用`~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md`中的内容]

**可选方案：**
1. **接受** — [一句话说明为何此方案可行]
2. **提出异议，建议措辞：** "[拟议的反措辞]" — [一句话说明对方可能的反应]
3. **终止合作** — [一句话说明结合业务背景此方案是否现实]

**我的建议：** [选择哪个方案及简要理由]

**需在[日期]前做出决策**（如有截止日期请注明）

[完整审核备忘录链接]

Step 5: Record the escalation

步骤5：记录升级情况

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 next person who reads the memo should see the status.
如果团队使用工单系统或[CLM]审批工作流，请记录。如果没有，请在审核备忘录中注明已发送升级请求、发送对象及时间。后续查看备忘录的人员应能看到状态。

Calibration: when in doubt, escalate with a note

校准：存疑时，附带说明进行升级

The cost of an unnecessary escalation is ~30 seconds of the approver's time — they read, say "fine, proceed," and the record shows they saw it. The cost of a missed escalation is signing an unapproved term, which is a one-way door. The costs are not symmetric. When in doubt, escalate.
The calibration for what warrants escalation lives in 
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md
, not in this skill. Check the playbook's stated position, its fallbacks, and its "automatic escalation regardless of dollar value" list:
  • Clearly inside the fallback range: no escalation needed.
  • Clearly outside the range, or on the automatic-escalation list: escalate.
  • Uncertain — the term is ambiguous, novel, or arguably inside the range but the argument is a stretch: escalate anyway, and note the uncertainty explicitly. The draft flags the specific question the approver needs to decide and why the skill couldn't confidently place it inside the fallback. The approver narrows; the skill does not.
Do not suppress an escalation because over-escalation might train approvers to skim. That's an approver-experience problem the attorney solves by adjusting thresholds in the playbook, not a problem the skill solves by making its own subjective call on a term it's uncertain about.
If a term comes up that the playbook doesn't address, don't guess the threshold — ask the reviewing attorney whether this class of issue should escalate, and offer to record the answer in 
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md
so future reviews are consistent.
不必要的升级成本约为审批人30秒的时间——他们阅读后回复“没问题，继续”，记录会显示他们已查看。而遗漏升级的成本是签署未获批的条款，这是不可逆的。两者成本不对称。存疑时，选择升级。
升级标准的校准依据是
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md
，而非本Skill。请查看手册中规定的立场、允许范围及“无论金额多少均自动升级”的列表：
  • 明显在允许范围内：无需升级。
  • 明显超出范围，或在自动升级列表中：升级。
  • 不确定——条款模糊、新颖，或可勉强认为在范围内但理由不充分：仍需升级，并明确注明不确定性。草稿中需指出审批人需要决定的具体问题，以及本Skill无法确定其是否在允许范围内的原因。由审批人来界定范围，本Skill不做主观判断。
不要因担心过度升级会导致审批人敷衍了事而压制升级请求。这是审批人体验问题，应由律师通过调整手册中的阈值来解决，而非本Skill通过对不确定条款做出主观判断来解决。
如果出现手册未提及的条款，请不要猜测阈值——询问负责审核的律师此类问题是否需要升级，并提议将答案记录在
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md
中，以便后续审核保持一致。

What this skill does not do

本Skill不执行的操作

  • It does not approve anything. It routes.
  • It does not decide between the options. The draft includes a recommendation but the approver decides.
  • It does not send the escalation message — it drafts it. The lawyer sends it after reading.
  • 不进行任何审批。仅负责路由。
  • 不做方案决策。草稿包含建议，但最终由审批人决定。
  • 不发送升级消息——仅起草。由律师审阅后发送。",