Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Anwalt prüft Warenkaufvertrag nach UCC oder Sale of Goods Act: title risk warranties perfect tender remedies. Anwendungsfall US-Kaufvertrag oder UK-Warengeschäft. Prüfraster UCC Art. 2 Sale-of-Goods-Act-Prüfung Title-Risk-Transfer Warranty-Typen Perfect-Tender-Rule. Output Kaufvertrags-Analyse Risikomatrix Empfehlungen. Abgrenzung zu common-law-contract-formation-consideration (Allgemein) und common-law-representations-warranties-covenants (Klauseln).
.claude/skills/thomasmoreai-common-law-ucc-sales-goods/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 54% | 0% |
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 17% | 0% |
| case-03 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 52% | 0% |
| case-14 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 95% | 0% |
| case-17 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 283% | 0% |
Title, risk, acceptance, rejection, implied warranties und battle of forms werden rechtsordnungsspezifisch geprüft.
Common-Law-Kompass arbeitet freundlich, präzise und verzeihend. Der Stil darf leicht sein, aber nie auf Kosten der juristischen Trennschärfe.
Before proceeding, clarify:
Addressee: Deal team or client Tone: US-commercial; plain English
UCC ARTICLE 2 SALES CONTRACT CHECKLIST
Date: [DATE] — Goods: [DESCRIPTION] — State: [STATE]
1. FORMATION
Both parties merchants?: [YES / NO — special rules apply]
Battle of forms (§ 2-207): [YES — terms differ / NO]
Outcome: [last-shot rule / knockout rule / ...]
2. WARRANTIES
Express warranty (§ 2-313): [YES — basis of bargain: ...]
Implied warranty merchantability (§ 2-314): [YES / DISCLAIMED conspicuously]
Implied fitness (§ 2-315): [YES — seller knew purpose / DISCLAIMED]
Disclaimer conspicuous (§ 2-316): [YES — caps, bold / NO — RISK]
3. RISK OF LOSS
Shipment contract (F.O.B. origin): risk passes on delivery to carrier
Destination contract (F.O.B. destination): risk passes on tender at destination
Current clause: [VERBATIM] — classification: [shipment / destination]
4. REMEDIES (Buyer)
Cover (§ 2-712): buy substitute; recover difference
Market price damages (§ 2-713): contract price minus market price at breach
Specific performance (§ 2-716): unique goods or other proper circumstances
Rejection (§ 2-601): perfect tender rule — any non-conformity allows rejection
Revocation of acceptance (§ 2-608): substantial impairment after acceptance
5. CISG APPLICABLE?
Both parties in CISG states?: [YES — CISG governs unless excluded / NO]
Exclusion clause: [present / NOT present — add Art. 6 CISG opt-out]| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-07 | pass→pass | 9,851 | 17,326 | +76% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,836 | 4,439 | +142% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-01 | fail→pass | 24,311 | 30,319 | +25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,349 | 6,687 | +54% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | 29,976 | 23,262 | -22% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,720 | 5,512 | +17% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→pass | 21,584 | 23,365 | +8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,608 | 5,467 | +52% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 14,383 | 18,419 | +28% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,662 | 4,524 | +70% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 18,465 | 20,595 | +12% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,097 | 4,870 | +57% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 10,178 | 19,042 | +87% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,881 | 4,776 | +154% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 14,062 | 15,203 | +8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,463 | 4,018 | +63% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | pass→pass | 15,956 | 17,997 | +13% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,831 | 4,381 | +55% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 13,416 | 20,570 | +53% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,171 | 5,163 | +138% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 9,291 | 15,217 | +64% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,742 | 3,995 | +129% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 14,304 | 19,623 | +37% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,392 | 4,724 | +97% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 6,798 | 16,566 | +144% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,307 | 4,366 | +234% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→pass | 15,400 | 23,396 | +52% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,488 | 4,853 | +95% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 6,981 | 15,991 | +129% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,507 | 4,407 | +192% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 9,800 | 17,142 | +75% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,819 | 4,660 | +156% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | 6,208 | 16,694 | +169% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,090 | 4,176 | +283% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 36,118 | 9,662 | -73% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,838 | 2,948 | +4% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | 28,027 | 20,724 | -26% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 5,001 | 4,884 | -2% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 20,179 | 21,467 | +6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,670 | 5,100 | +39% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 22,285 | 18,757 | -16% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,757 | 4,541 | +21% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 21,051 | 20,031 | -5% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,345 | 4,483 | +34% | 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 +27 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
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.