Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Anwalt oder Mandant will Vertragsschluss-Grundlagen des Common Law verstehen: offer acceptance consideration deed promissory estoppel UCC. Anwendungsfall Transaktionsvertrag oder NDA mit UK/US-Gegenpartei. Prüfraster Consideration-Prüfung Deed-Anforderungen Estoppel-Risiko UCC-Varianten. Output Erklärung Vertragsschluss-Checkliste Risiko-Hinweis. Abgrenzung zu common-law-governing-law-jurisdiction (Rechtswahl) und common-law-representations-warranties-covenants (Klauseln).
.claude/skills/thomasmoreai-common-law-contract-formation-consideration/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 20% | 0% |
| case-05 | ✓→✗ | ▼ Worse | 16% | 0% |
| case-04 | ✓→✓ | ＝ Same ✓ | 28% | 0% |
| case-06 | ✓→✓ | ＝ Same ✓ | 30% | 0% |
| case-07 | ✓→✓ | ＝ Same ✓ | 73% | 0% |
Contract formation wird nicht mit deutschem Willenserklärungs- und Synallagma-Autopiloten verwechselt.
Common-Law-Kompass arbeitet freundlich, präzise und verzeihend. Der Stil darf leicht sein, aber nie auf Kosten der juristischen Trennschärfe.
Before proceeding, clarify:
Addressee: Client or internal memo Tone: Clear, functional; highlighting jurisdiction-specific risks
CONTRACT FORMATION CHECKLIST
Date: [DATE] — Matter: [DESCRIPTION]
Jurisdiction: [England/Wales / New York / Delaware / ...]
1. OFFER: Clear, definite, communicated: [YES / NO — issue: ...]
2. ACCEPTANCE: Mirror-image (UK strict) / UCC 2-207 (US battle of forms): [...]
Method of acceptance: [in writing / conduct / performance]
3. CONSIDERATION:
Adequacy (courts generally don't review): [YES]
Sufficiency (must be of value in law): [YES / NO — past consideration issue?]
Practical benefit (Williams v Roffey applicable?): [YES / NO]
4. INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATIONS: [presumed commercial / rebutted?]
5. DEED (if consideration absent): [signed / witnessed / delivered?]
6. CAPACITY: parties legally capable: [YES / NO — corporation authority?]
7. UCC ISSUES (if goods): Merchant rule § 2-205 / 2-207: [applicable / not]
RESULT:
[ ] Valid binding contract
[ ] Contract fails — issue: [DESCRIPTION]
[ ] Local counsel review recommended| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→fail | 17,820 | 23,175 | +30% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,214 | 5,353 | +67% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | 20,497 | 18,090 | -12% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,816 | 4,598 | +20% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | 18,861 | 20,602 | +9% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,558 | 5,191 | +46% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 17,766 | 16,045 | -10% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,363 | 4,293 | +28% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→fail | 20,491 | 15,716 | -23% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,680 | 4,265 | +16% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 17,107 | 18,427 | +8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,743 | 4,869 | +30% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | 12,256 | 13,999 | +14% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,333 | 4,025 | +73% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 11,096 | 15,175 | +37% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,223 | 4,088 | +84% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | pass→pass | 13,495 | 17,792 | +32% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,596 | 4,532 | +75% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 11,713 | 14,988 | +28% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,285 | 4,013 | +76% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 6,557 | 11,927 | +82% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,258 | 3,625 | +188% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 12,089 | 16,302 | +35% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,563 | 4,451 | +74% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 10,256 | 14,622 | +43% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,037 | 4,085 | +101% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 15,825 | 16,260 | +3% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,146 | 4,442 | +41% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 11,304 | 13,126 | +16% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,243 | 3,798 | +69% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 13,691 | 15,109 | +10% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,679 | 4,188 | +56% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 8,413 | 11,486 | +37% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,638 | 3,216 | +96% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 9,290 | 15,068 | +62% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,928 | 4,396 | +128% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 13,499 | 18,581 | +38% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,482 | 4,584 | +85% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 11,191 | 16,562 | +48% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,113 | 4,621 | +119% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 11,994 | 16,536 | +38% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,137 | 4,140 | +94% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 24,145 | 17,597 | -27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,533 | 4,534 | +0% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of 0 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases. 1 case got worse with the skill loaded, and it is included in that figure.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.