[omh] Surface contract and compliance risks, questions, and escalation points before a legal decision or action.
SkillScore73Maintained
Automatic
◆Legal & Contracts pack
Last verified 8/18/2026
What it changes
Passed 16 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 8 of 22 without it.
Without skill36%
With skill73%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Name responsible contract owners to determine operational impact.
Identify the applicable governing jurisdiction as an open question.
Prepare questions for employment counsel regarding scope reasonableness.
and 5 more in the full report
8 fixed8 passed either way6 still failing0 broke
Pass-rate lift
+36 pp
Tokens
+45%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-15%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/18/2026v316 of 22 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 8 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 8
Prompt
Review this clause from our SaaS agreement: 'Vendor reserves the right to modify pricing with 3 days notice via email.' Provide a risk-ranked issue matrix and counsel brief.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Identify the applicable governing jurisdiction as an open question.
Missed
Passed
Rank the pricing modification notice clause as a risk requiring legal counsel escalation.
Passed
Passed
case-05 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/18/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
SKILL.md113 linessingle file
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.