stakeholder-summary

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Stakeholder Summary

相关方摘要

Matter context

事项背景

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
.

事项背景。查看实践层级CLAUDE.md中的
## Matter workspaces
部分。如果
Enabled
(内部用户默认设置),则跳过本段剩余内容——技能会使用实践层级上下文,事项机制不可见。如果已启用且无活跃事项,请询问:“这是针对哪个事项的?运行
/commercial-legal:matter-workspace switch <slug>
或说明
practice-level
。”加载活跃事项的
matter.md
以获取事项特定上下文和覆盖配置。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
开启,否则切勿读取其他事项的文件。

Destination check

接收方检查

Before producing output, check where it's going. If the user has named a destination (a channel, a distribution list, a counterparty, "everyone"), ask whether it's inside the privilege circle. Public channels, company-wide lists, counterparty/opposing counsel, vendors, and clients (for work product) waive the protection. When the destination looks outside the circle, flag it and offer (a) the privileged version for legal only, (b) a sanitized version for the broader channel, or (c) both — don't silently apply a privileged header and then help paste it somewhere the header won't protect it. See the canonical
## Shared guardrails → Destination check
in this plugin's CLAUDE.md.
生成输出前,请确认接收方。如果用户指定了接收方(如频道、分发列表、交易对手、“所有人”),请询问该接收方是否属于保密圈。公开频道、全公司列表、交易对手/对方律师、供应商以及客户(针对工作成果)会丧失保密保护。当接收方看起来在保密圈外时,需标记并提供以下选项:(a) 仅供法律部门查看的保密版本,(b) 适用于更广范围频道的脱敏版本,(c) 两者都提供——不要静默添加保密页眉后又协助将其粘贴到页眉无法提供保护的地方。请参阅此插件CLAUDE.md中的标准
## Shared guardrails → Destination check
部分。

Purpose

目标

The business owner who asked for this contract doesn't want a legal memo. They want to know: can I sign it, what's the catch, and what do I need to do. This skill takes a completed review and turns it into that.
请求这份合同的业务负责人不需要法律备忘录。他们想知道:我能否签署,有什么潜在隐患,以及我需要做什么。本技能会基于已完成的审查内容生成符合需求的摘要。

Which side?

立场区分

The underlying review memo was run against either the sales-side or the purchasing-side playbook. Carry that framing through. A purchasing-side summary tells the business owner "here's what we're getting and what we agreed to give up"; a sales-side summary tells them "here's what we're selling and what we're on the hook for." Check which side the review was run on (it should be noted at the top of the review memo) and match the voice. If it's not obvious from the memo, ask the lawyer before summarizing.
基础审查备忘录是基于销售端或采购端的操作手册生成的。需延续该框架。采购端摘要会告知业务负责人“我们将获得什么,以及我们同意做出哪些让步”;销售端摘要会告知他们“我们将销售什么,以及我们需要承担哪些责任”。请确认审查是基于哪一方(审查备忘录顶部应注明)并匹配语气。如果无法从备忘录中明确判断,请在总结前询问律师。

Audience calibration

受众校准

Read
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md
## House style
→ who reads stakeholder summaries, how long should they be. If not specified, default to: procurement or a department head, two paragraphs max, no legal terms of art.
Different audiences need different summaries:
AudienceCares aboutDoesn't care about
ProcurementPrice, renewal mechanics, approval routingLiability cap structure
Department head (budget owner)Can their team use it, what happens if it breaks, costIndemnity scope
FinanceTotal cost of ownership, renewal price risk, off-balance-sheet commitmentsGoverning law
Security / ITData handling, subprocessors, SOC 2, where data livesEverything else
Executive sponsorIs this going to embarrass us, is legal a blockerDetails
Ask who this is for if it's not obvious from context.
阅读
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md
## House style
→ 相关方摘要的受众是谁、应保持多长篇幅。如果未指定,默认设置为:采购部门或部门主管,最多两段,不使用法律专业术语。
不同受众需要不同的摘要:
受众关注重点无关关注点
采购部门价格、续约机制、审批流程责任上限结构
部门负责人(预算所有者)团队能否使用、出现故障时的后果、成本赔偿范围
财务部门总拥有成本、续约价格风险、表外承诺管辖法律
安全/IT部门数据处理、分包商、SOC 2、数据存储位置其他所有内容
执行发起人这是否会让我们陷入尴尬、法律是否会成为阻碍细节内容
如果无法从上下文明确判断,请询问这份摘要的受众是谁。

The summary

摘要规范

Length cap — enforced

严格控制篇幅

The summary is:
  • One paragraph for the verdict and what this is (business terms, plain English)
  • One paragraph for the catch — the thing the stakeholder would be surprised by later if nobody told them now
  • A 2-3 item checklist for what the stakeholder actually needs to do (at most three items; if you want a fourth, the first three aren't tight enough)
  • A one-line close with approval timing
Under 200 words total. If you're writing more, you're including detail the stakeholder doesn't need — they have the memo for that. This is the quick read before the stakeholder hits reply.
If the close needs a third paragraph, fold it into the checklist instead. Don't let the close grow into a fourth block.
摘要应包含:
  • 一段结论及业务层面的内容说明(用通俗易懂的语言)
  • 一段需要注意的关键点——如果现在不告知,相关方之后会感到意外的内容
  • 2-3项的检查清单相关方实际需要执行的操作(最多三项;如果想加第四项,说明前三项不够精炼)
  • 一句收尾说明审批时间
总字数不超过200字。如果写得更多,说明你加入了相关方不需要的细节——他们可以查看完整备忘录。这是相关方回复前的快速阅读内容。
如果收尾需要第三段,请将其融入检查清单。不要让收尾扩展为第四块内容。

Scope of quote — discipline

引用范围规范

When quoting a contract clause (in the summary, in the "catch" paragraph, or in the checklist), quote the full conditional sentence, not a truncated version. A clause that reads "Except as expressly provided in the Order Form, renewal of promotional or one-time priced subscriptions resets to list price" means something different from "renewal resets to list price" — the truncation drops the condition and misrepresents what the term does.
If a full conditional quote doesn't fit the summary's length cap, paraphrase rather than truncate. "For promotional pricing, renewal resets to list" is a fair paraphrase; "renewal resets to list" is not — it promotes the exception to the rule.
在摘要、“需要注意的关键点”段落或检查清单中引用合同条款时,请引用完整的条件句,而非截断版本。例如条款“除订单表格中明确规定外,促销或一次性定价订阅的续约将重置为标价”与“续约将重置为标价”的含义不同——截断版本遗漏了条件,歪曲了条款的实际意义。
如果完整的条件引用不符合摘要的篇幅限制,请进行意译而非截断。“促销定价的续约将重置为标价”是合理的意译;“续约将重置为标价”则不合理——它将例外情况表述为了规则。

Format

格式

Prepend the work-product header from
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md
## Outputs
(it differs by user role — see
## Who's using this
).
markdown
[WORK-PRODUCT HEADER — per plugin config ## Outputs]
<!-- Remove the header above if forwarding outside the legal-privileged circle (e.g., to a business stakeholder, counterparty, or vendor). Confirm the correct marking for your jurisdiction and matter before forwarding. -->

**[Counterparty] [Agreement type]** — [READY TO SIGN | NEEDS CHANGES | BLOCKED]

[One paragraph: what this agreement does, in business terms. Not "Master Services
Agreement for the provision of cloud-based analytics" — "this is the contract
for the dashboard tool the marketing team wants."]

[One paragraph: what the stakeholder needs to know. The catch, if there is one.
The thing that will surprise them later if nobody tells them now. E.g., "Heads
up: this auto-renews every year and we have to cancel 60 days out. I've added
it to the tracker but you should know." Or: "Clean agreement, no surprises,
cleared to sign."]

<!-- Do not claim "I've added it to the tracker" unless `renewal-tracker` has
actually been run for this contract — see Verify tracker entries before
asserting them below. -->

**Verify tracker entries before asserting them.** Before the summary says "I've added it to the tracker" (or any equivalent — "it's in the tracker," "tracked," "set a reminder"), verify that `renewal-tracker` has been run for this contract. Check the outputs folder or the matter folder for a `renewal-tracker` output that names this counterparty / agreement. If there isn't one:

- Either run `renewal-tracker` for this contract first, then write the summary.
- Or write the summary without asserting the tracker entry, and include an action item: "Add to renewal tracker — not yet done."

Claiming a tracker entry exists when it does not is worse than omitting the reassurance. The stakeholder then trusts the reminder that will never fire. If the truthful statement is "tracked," the skill runs the tracker. If it's "you should add this to your calendar — I haven't logged it," say that.

**What you need to do:**
- [ ] [Action item, if any — "confirm the team is okay with data living in EU"
  or "nothing — I'll route for signature"]

**Approval:** [who's approving and expected timing]
添加
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md
## Outputs
中的工作成果页眉(根据用户角色不同而有所差异——请参阅
## Who's using this
)。
markdown
[WORK-PRODUCT HEADER — per plugin config ## Outputs]
<!-- 如果转发至法律保密圈外(如业务相关方、交易对手或供应商),请移除上方页眉。转发前请确认符合您所在司法管辖区和事项的正确标记。 -->

**[交易对手] [协议类型]** — [可签署 | 需要修改 | 受阻]

[一段:用业务术语说明本协议的用途。不要写“提供云分析的主服务协议”——要写“这是营销团队所需的仪表盘工具的合同”。]

[一段:相关方需要了解的内容。即潜在隐患(如果有的话),也就是如果现在不告知,相关方之后会感到意外的内容。例如:“注意:本协议每年自动续约,我们需提前60天取消。我已将其添加到跟踪器中,但你需要知晓此事。”或者:“协议无问题,无意外情况,可签署。”]

<!-- 除非已针对本合同运行`renewal-tracker`,否则不要声称“我已将其添加到跟踪器中”——请参阅下方的“在声明前验证跟踪器条目”。 -->

**在声明前验证跟踪器条目**。如果摘要中提到“我已将其添加到跟踪器中”(或类似表述——“已在跟踪器中”“已跟踪”“已设置提醒”),请验证是否已针对本合同运行`renewal-tracker`。检查输出文件夹或事项文件夹中是否有提及该交易对手/协议的`renewal-tracker`输出。如果没有:

- 要么先针对本合同运行`renewal-tracker`,再撰写摘要。
- 要么撰写摘要时不声明跟踪器条目,并添加一个行动项:“添加到续约跟踪器——尚未完成。”

声称跟踪器条目存在但实际不存在比省略该保证更糟糕。相关方会信任永远不会触发的提醒。如果真实情况是“已跟踪”,则技能会运行跟踪器。如果真实情况是“你应将其添加到日历中——我尚未记录”,请如实说明。

**你需要做的:**
- [ ] [行动项(如有)——“确认团队同意数据存储在欧盟”或“无需操作——我将发起签署流程”]

**审批:** [审批人及预计时间]

What to translate

术语转换

Legal findingBusiness translation
"Liability capped at 12 months fees""If they break something, the most we can recover is a year's worth of what we paid them."
"No termination for convenience""Once we sign, we're locked in for the full term — we can't just cancel if we stop using it."
"Auto-renewal with 60-day notice""This renews automatically every year. To cancel, we have to tell them two months before the renewal date."
"No IP indemnity""If someone sues us claiming this tool infringes their patent, the vendor isn't on the hook to defend us."
"Subprocessor list not disclosed""We don't know what other companies will have access to our data through them."
"Data deletion within 30 days of termination""When we cancel, they delete our data within a month. Export anything you need before then."
"SLA credits capped at 10% of monthly fee""If the service goes down, we get a small credit back. It won't cover the cost of the downtime to the business."
法律结论业务术语转换
"Liability capped at 12 months fees""如果对方违约,我们最多可追回相当于一年服务费的赔偿。"
"No termination for convenience""一旦签署,我们将锁定整个合同期限——即使不再使用也不能随意取消。"
"Auto-renewal with 60-day notice""本协议每年自动续约。如需取消,需在续约日期前两个月通知对方。"
"No IP indemnity""如果有人起诉我们称该工具侵犯其专利,供应商无需为我们辩护。"
"Subprocessor list not disclosed""我们不知道还有哪些其他公司可以通过他们访问我们的数据。"
"Data deletion within 30 days of termination""当我们取消协议时,对方会在一个月内删除我们的数据。请在此之前导出所需内容。"
"SLA credits capped at 10% of monthly fee""如果服务中断,我们会获得少量费用抵扣,但无法覆盖业务因停机产生的损失。"

What NOT to include

禁止包含内容

  • Section numbers
  • Defined terms in quotes
  • The word "indemnification" (say "they cover us if" / "we cover them if")
  • The word "notwithstanding"
  • Risk matrices with colored dots (unless this stakeholder has specifically asked for them before)
  • Caveats about how this isn't legal advice — the stakeholder knows who sent it
  • 条款编号
  • 带引号的定义术语
  • “indemnification”(赔偿)一词(请使用“对方将为我们承担...”/“我们将为对方承担...”)
  • “notwithstanding”(尽管)一词
  • 带彩色标记的风险矩阵(除非该相关方之前明确要求过)
  • 关于本内容并非法律建议的警告——相关方知道发送者是谁

When the review found problems

当审查发现问题时

If the review has 🔴 or 🟠 issues, the summary still needs to be two paragraphs — but the second paragraph is "here's what we're pushing back on and why."
markdown
[WORK-PRODUCT HEADER — per plugin config ## Outputs]
<!-- Remove the header above if forwarding outside the legal-privileged circle. -->

**[Counterparty] [Agreement type]** — NEEDS CHANGES

[What it is, one paragraph.]

We're going back to them on [N] things before this is ready. The main one:
[the critical issue in plain English — "they want the right to use our data
to improve their product, which means our competitors' instance gets smarter
from our data"]. We've asked them to strike it. [Realistic assessment: "They'll
probably agree" / "This might be a sticking point — will keep you posted."]

**What you need to do:**
- [ ] Nothing yet — I'll let you know when it's back from them.
  OR
- [ ] [Business decision they need to make: "If they won't budge on X, are you
  okay with Y, or do we walk?"]
如果审查发现🔴或🟠问题,摘要仍需保持两段——但第二段应为“我们将针对哪些问题提出异议及原因”。
markdown
[WORK-PRODUCT HEADER — per plugin config ## Outputs]
<!-- 如果转发至法律保密圈外,请移除上方页眉。 -->

**[交易对手] [协议类型]** — 需要修改

[协议用途,一段。]

在协议准备就绪前,我们将针对[N]个问题与对方沟通。主要问题:[用通俗易懂的语言说明关键问题——“他们想要使用我们的数据来改进其产品,这意味着我们竞争对手的系统会从我们的数据中学习”]。我们已要求删除该条款。[实际评估:“他们很可能会同意”/“这可能是一个争议点——会及时告知你进展”]。

**你需要做的:**
- [ ] 暂无需操作——对方回复后我会通知你。
- [ ] [需要业务决策的事项:“如果对方在X问题上不肯让步,你是否接受Y方案,还是我们终止合作?”]

Handoffs

交接规范

From vendor-agreement-review / saas-msa-review: Those skills produce the full memo. This skill reads the memo and compresses it. Don't re-review the contract — read the review.
To the stakeholder: Via whatever channel
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md
says. If Slack, keep it under 150 words. If email, the format above is fine as-is.
**从vendor-agreement-review / saas-msa-review接收:**这些技能会生成完整备忘录。本技能会读取备忘录并进行压缩。无需重新审查合同——只需读取审查结果。
**交付给相关方:**通过
~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md
指定的渠道。如果是Slack,内容需控制在150字以内。如果是邮件,上述格式可直接使用。

Escalation-fan-out reconciliation

升级请求核对

The upstream review is a one-to-many producer: it can name five escalation targets (Deputy GC, CISO, Privacy Officer, CFO, business owner) across different findings.
escalation-flagger
routes one finding at a time. Without a reconciliation step, the Deputy GC sees the memo and the other four approvers never do.
Before producing the summary, read the upstream review memo and tally escalations:
  1. Count the escalation targets the review named. Look for the routing / escalation block at the end of the review, or for per-finding "escalate to [X]" tags. De-dupe by approver name — a reviewer named for two findings counts once.
  2. Count the escalations actually routed. Read the review folder (or matter folder) for
    escalation-*.md
    drafts produced by
    escalation-flagger
    since the review was written. Each draft names one approver.
  3. Reconcile. If N approvers were named and M drafts exist, (N − M) escalations have not been routed.
Include a short reconciliation block in the summary — above the checklist, below the catch paragraph:
markdown
**Escalation status:** [M] of [N] escalation targets routed. The following have not been routed and require action:
- [Approver name] — [one line on the finding that named them]
- [Approver name] — [one line]
If all N have been routed:
markdown
**Escalation status:** [N] of [N] escalation targets routed.
If the upstream review surfaced no escalations, omit the block.
Do not omit a named approver from the reconciliation because the stakeholder wouldn't recognize the name. Business stakeholders often do not know who the Privacy Officer or CISO is. The reconciliation is internal-facing — it tells the lawyer sending the summary whether all the routing is done, not the stakeholder. If the stakeholder-facing summary needs to stay narrow, the reconciliation can live in a "routing status" footer or attached note — but it has to exist. A summary that implies routing is complete when it is not is worse than no summary.
Word-count carve-out. The escalation reconciliation block is exempt from the 200-word cap. Length-cap discipline on the summary body stays; the reconciliation is housekeeping, not narrative.
When no escalation-flagger drafts exist. If the upstream review named approvers and no drafts are in the folder, treat the count as M = 0. The reconciliation block lists all N as unrouted. That is the finding.
上游审查是一对多的产出:它可以针对不同的发现指定五个升级对象(副总法律顾问、CISO、隐私专员、CFO、业务负责人)。
escalation-flagger
会逐个处理发现并发送请求。如果没有核对步骤,副总法律顾问会看到备忘录,而其他四位审批人则不会。
生成摘要前,请读取上游审查备忘录并统计升级请求:
  1. 统计审查指定的升级对象数量。查看审查末尾的流程/升级块,或每个发现中的“escalate to [X]”标签。按审批人姓名去重——同一审批人被指定处理两个发现仅算一次。
  2. 统计已发送的升级请求数量。读取审查文件夹(或事项文件夹)中自审查完成以来
    escalation-flagger
    生成的
    escalation-*.md
    草稿。每个草稿对应一位审批人。
  3. 核对差异。如果指定了N位审批人,而存在M份草稿,则有(N − M)个升级请求尚未发送。
在摘要中添加一个简短的核对块——位于检查清单上方、“需要注意的关键点”段落下方:
markdown
**升级请求状态:**已发送[M]份,共[N]份升级请求。以下对象尚未收到请求,需处理:
- [审批人姓名] — [指定该审批人的发现的一行说明]
- [审批人姓名] — [一行说明]
如果所有N份请求都已发送:
markdown
**升级请求状态:**已发送[N]份,共[N]份升级请求。
如果上游审查未提出升级请求,则省略此块。
不要因相关方不认识审批人姓名而省略核对内容。业务相关方通常不知道隐私专员或CISO是谁。核对内容是面向内部的——它会告知发送摘要的律师所有流程是否已完成,而非告知相关方。如果面向相关方的摘要需要保持简洁,核对内容可放在“流程状态”页脚或附加说明中——但必须存在。暗示流程已完成但实际未完成的摘要比没有摘要更糟糕。
字数限制例外。升级请求核对块不受200字限制。摘要主体仍需严格控制篇幅;核对内容是内务处理,不属于叙事内容。
如果没有escalation-flagger草稿。如果上游审查指定了审批人但文件夹中没有草稿,则视为M = 0。核对块会列出所有N位审批人未收到请求的情况。这就是核对结果。

A note on tone

语气说明

Stakeholders remember two things about legal: did it block me, and did it make sense. This skill is how legal makes sense. Write like you're explaining it to a smart colleague over coffee, not like you're writing a memo to file.
If the honest summary is "this is fine, sign it," say that. Don't pad a clean review into three paragraphs to look thorough.
相关方对法律团队的印象主要来自两点:是否阻碍了他们,以及是否解释清楚了问题。本技能是法律团队清晰解释问题的方式。撰写时要像在咖啡店里向聪明的同事解释一样,而不是像撰写归档备忘录。
如果真实的总结是“没问题,可以签署”,就直接这么说。不要为了显得全面而将无问题的审查扩展为三段内容。