Loading...
Loading...
Reference: shared gap- and comment-tracker framework backing /regulatory-legal:gaps and /regulatory-legal:comments. Tracks open policy gaps with remediation status, ingests gaps from policy-diff, surfaces what's open and aging, routes to owners, and notifies gap owners via Slack with per-send confirmation. Loaded by the gaps and comments skills before doing substantive work.
npx skill4agent add anthropics/claude-for-legal gap-surfacerOwner notifications: on by default. To opt an owner out, leaveempty.owner_slack
## Matter workspacesEnabled✗/regulatory-legal:matter-workspace switch <slug>practice-levelmatter.md~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/regulatory-legal/matters/<matter-slug>/Cross-matter contexton~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/regulatory-legal/gap-tracker.yamlNote on comment-tracker.yaml:is a sibling file owned by the comments skill. It is written to by reg-feed-watcher (which logs NPRMs automatically) and the comments skill (which tracks user-initiated comment decisions). This skill does not read or cross-reference it. If you modify the comment-tracker schema, update both actual consumers.~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/regulatory-legal/comment-tracker.yaml
gaps:
- id: GAP-001
requirement: "[what the reg requires]"
regulation: "[name + cite]"
policy_affected: "[name or 'new policy needed']"
gap_type: "partial" # none | partial | full | new-policy | watch | comment-decision
owner: "[name from policy index]"
owner_slack: "[Slack user ID or handle, if known]"
opened: 2026-03-01
due: 2026-06-01 # reg effective date, internal deadline, or comment deadline
status_verified: true # false if upstream policy-diff could not confirm the rule is in force; unverified items never hit 🔴 Overdue
status: "open" # open | in-progress | closed | risk-accepted
notified: false # set to true after assignment notification sent
resolution: "" # filled on closestatus_verified: falsewatchwatchgap_type| Value | Meaning | Typical reminder cadence |
|---|---|---|
| Policy already covers the requirement. Logged for audit trail only. Should be rare — if most entries are | No auto-reminder. |
| Policy addresses the topic but doesn't fully cover the new requirement. Needs an amendment. | 30 days before due. |
| Policy contradicts or silently omits the new requirement. Needs a rewrite or new section. | 30 days before due. |
| No existing policy covers this. Policy needs to be drafted. | 30 days before due. |
| Forward-looking item — ANPR, RFI, proposed rule not yet final. No compliance obligation today; policy work waits for the final rule. | No auto-reminder; re-evaluate when an NPRM drops or at the revisit date. |
| Pre-rulemaking comment decision pending — ANPR or NPRM where the team is deciding whether to file a comment. | 21 days before due (tighter than compliance gaps because comment-drafting windows are short). |
watchcomment-decisionowner_slack📋 New compliance gap assigned to you
Gap: [GAP-ID] — [requirement, one sentence]
Regulation: [name + link]
Policy affected: [policy name or "new policy needed"]
Due: [reg effective date]
View full gap tracker: /regulatory-legal:gapsnotified: true[WORK-PRODUCT HEADER — per plugin config ## Outputs — differs by role; see `## Who's using this`]
## Open Gaps — [date]
### Bottom line
[N gaps need action by [date] — top 3: X, Y, Z]
### 🔴 Overdue
| ID | Requirement | Policy | Owner | Due | Days over |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
### 🟠 Due in <30 days
[same]
### 🟡 Open
[same]
### 👀 Watch items (forward-looking — pre-rule)
[Pre-rule tracking — `watch` and `comment-decision` entries. These are not
compliance gaps. Surface separately so the overdue / due-soon bands contain
only real compliance deadlines.]
| ID | Item | Type (ANPR/NPRM/RFI) | Comment deadline | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
### In progress
[same]
### Recently closed
[last 5, with resolution]
---
**Oldest open gap:** [ID], [N] days
**Gaps by owner:** [breakdown]
**Owner notifications sent:** [N] / [N total gaps]
---
**Next step for each open gap:** `/regulatory-legal:policy-redraft` produces a marked-up policy redraft with `[verify]` tags and a change summary. It's a proposal for the policy owner's review — not a direct edit to source documents.
---
**Verify citations before relying on them.** Regulation citations in this tracker were AI-generated upstream (by reg-feed-watcher and policy-diff) and have not been checked against a primary source. Before closing or risk-accepting a gap — or citing one in an attestation, board report, or regulator response — confirm the underlying rule against Westlaw, your firm's research platform, or the issuing authority's website. AI-generated regulatory citations are sometimes fabricated, misquoted, or stale. Source tags carried forward from upstream (e.g., `[Federal Register]`, `[web search — verify]`) show where each citation originated; `verify` tags carry higher fabrication risk and should be checked first. Never strip the tags when surfacing gaps.~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/regulatory-legal/CLAUDE.md[PLACEHOLDER]## Gap response process/regulatory-legal:cold-start-interview --redo~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/regulatory-legal/CLAUDE.mdowner: [unassigned]/regulatory-legal:cold-start-interview --redo~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/regulatory-legal/CLAUDE.mdgap_typepartialfullnew-policynonecomment-decisionwatchcomment-decisionrisk-acceptedclosed## Who's using thisCertifying compliance — or closing a gap as resolved — has legal consequences. The certification can be used against the company if it's later shown to be wrong, and premature closure leaves exposure unaddressed. Have you reviewed this with an attorney? If yes, proceed. If no, here's a brief to bring to them:
- The gap (requirement, source, what the policy diff found)
- What the proposed resolution does and does not cover
- Any residual gap or ambiguity
- Open questions and what's unresolved
- What could go wrong (overbroad certification, unresolved residual obligation, inconsistent prior position)
- What to ask the attorney (is this truly closed; should we risk-accept with rationale instead; do we need outside-counsel concurrence)
If you need to find a lawyer: your professional regulator's referral service is the fastest starting point (state bar in the US; SRA/Bar Standards Board in England & Wales; Law Society in Scotland/NI/Ireland/Canada/Australia; or your jurisdiction's equivalent).
/regulatory-legal:gaps --close GAP-001
Resolution: "Policy updated v2.3, approved [date]"/regulatory-legal:gaps --accept GAP-002
Rationale: "Requirement applies only to [condition we don't meet]. Revisit if [trigger]."
Accepted by: [name with authority]## Outputs## Outputs → Dashboard offer for data-heavy outputs