Legal Compliance Review

This is a Hermes-native legal-compliance-review workflow skill.

Why This Exists

legal-compliance-review surfaces scoped legal and compliance issues before a human legal decision without pretending Hermes is counsel or an external filing surface.

Do Not Use When

• The user needs a final jurisdiction-specific legal opinion, legal representation, or authoritative filing decision; prepare the issue and counsel brief instead.
• The review is about code, secrets, permissions, prompt injection, dependencies, or unsafe tool behavior; use security-safety-review.
• The request is a plain-language rewrite without a legal-risk review objective; use content-operator.
• The user asks to sign, accept, submit, file, publish, or change a policy or contract in an external system; use connector-operator only after explicit authority.

Examples

Good example:

• Prompt: Review this vendor DPA for data-processing obligations, risky clauses, and questions for counsel.
• Expected behavior: Prepare an authority-bound issue matrix, ranked risks, and counsel questions.
• Why: The request needs a prepared review and escalation aid before a legal decision.

Bad example:

• Prompt: Audit this OAuth integration for secret and permission risks.
• Expected behavior: Route to security-safety-review, not legal-compliance-review.
• Why: The target is technical security risk rather than contract or compliance analysis.

Completion Checklist

• Findings or no-issue results are grounded in concrete file, artifact, command, or source evidence.
• Open questions, residual risk, and missing verification are named.
• Fixes or follow-up work are separate handoffs unless the user explicitly asked to implement them.

Recovery Notes

• If the reviewed target is missing, inspect the requested artifact or ask one target question.
• If independent verification is unavailable, report the gap and avoid an approval-style claim.

Workflow Lane

• Current lane: Research and company ops (source-finder, research, best-practice-research, autoresearch-goal, research-brief, strategy-brief, feedback-triage, research-department, +13 more) - research, signals, ops, and briefings.
• If intent belongs to another lane, hand back to oh-my-hermes or name the adjacent workflow.
• Shared product, routing, compatibility, and evidence rules: omh-routing/references/skill-common-rail.md.

Use When

Use when supplied contract, policy, product, process, or regulatory context needs a scoped issue matrix, assumptions, and counsel/escalation brief.

Strong routing signals: contract review, regulatory analysis, compliance review, 계약서 검토, 규제 분석, 컴플라이언스 검토

Catalog Metadata

Category: review Phase: legal-compliance-review Hermes role: reviewer Quality tier: review-gated Reasoning demand: standard

Quality bar:

• Name jurisdiction, authority, document version, and unresolved questions.
• Rank issues and preserve the counsel-escalation boundary.

Handoff policy:

Keep domain framing, clarification, source/evidence synthesis, draft outputs, and next-work routing in Hermes. A prepared brief, review, reply, or plan is not an external action, approval, filing, send, publish, data mutation, implementation, review, CI, or merge claim. Prepare a connector, file, coding, or human-review handoff only when the user explicitly accepts that next step; report it only from observed evidence. The result is a prepared review and escalation aid, not legal advice, counsel sign-off, compliance certification, contract execution, filing, or regulator communication.

Required inputs:

• jurisdiction
• document or process version
• supplied authority
• review objective

Expert clarification questions:

• jurisdiction
• English: Which jurisdiction should this legal or compliance review apply to?
• Korean: 이 법률 또는 컴플라이언스 검토는 어느 관할권을 기준으로 해야 하나요?

Expected outputs:

• jurisdiction, document/version, authority, and evidence-boundary statement
• clause/control/requirement matrix with issue, rationale, owner, and open question
• risk-ranked negotiation, remediation, or counsel-escalation brief
• review checklist that distinguishes supplied evidence from legal interpretation

Artifact expectations:

• prepared legal and compliance issue matrix when a wrapper captures it

Safety rules:

• Distinguish supplied authority from legal interpretation and final advice.
• Do not claim sign-off, certification, filing, execution, or regulator communication.

Runtime Evidence

Preferred harness for this skill: critic.

sh
omh runtime record --skill legal-compliance-review --harness critic --status started

Record observed delegation results; otherwise return not_available or not_observed. Prepared OMH routing is not execution, review, CI, merge-readiness, or merge evidence.

• Treat wrapper memory/context summaries as advisory local context, not proof of opaque Hermes memory reads or changes.

Preserve workflow intent and stop conditions; verify before claiming completion.

Use Hermes-native subagent/delegation features when available: native subagents -> Hermes delegation when available, otherwise sequential lanes.

Shared product, compatibility, topology, memory, harness, and execution rules: omh-routing/references/skill-common-rail.md. Load it when applicable; otherwise name an unavailable capability.