Update to Legal Data Hunter

{
  "name": "legal-risk-assessment",
  "description": "Structured legal-risk scoring using a severity × likelihood matrix (1–5 each, score 1–25, GREEN/YELLOW/ORANGE/RED), including per-jurisdiction scoring driven by the highest-risk jurisdiction and triggers for escalating to outside counsel. Use when legal research feeds into a risk assessment or compliance decision across one or more jurisdictions.",
  "included_files": [],
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: legal-risk-assessment\ndescription: Structured legal-risk scoring using a severity × likelihood matrix (1–5 each, score 1–25, GREEN/YELLOW/ORANGE/RED), including per-jurisdiction scoring driven by the highest-risk jurisdiction and triggers for escalating to outside counsel. Use when legal research feeds into a risk assessment or compliance decision across one or more jurisdictions.\n---\n\n# Legal Risk Assessment\n\nUse this skill when legal research feeds into a risk assessment. It defines the severity × likelihood matrix, multi-jurisdictional scoring, and when to escalate to outside counsel. A risk assessment is only as good as the legal analysis that feeds it — complete the research (including the adversarial, doctrinal, and temporal checks) before scoring.\n\n## Risk Assessment Framework\n\nWhen the research feeds into a risk assessment, use the severity x likelihood matrix below.\n\n### Severity (impact if the risk materializes)\n\n| Level | Label | Description |\n|---|---|---|\n| 1 | **Negligible** | Minor inconvenience; no material financial, operational, or reputational impact. |\n| 2 | **Low** | Limited impact; minor financial exposure (< 1% of relevant value); minor operational disruption. |\n| 3 | **Moderate** | Meaningful impact; material financial exposure (1-5% of relevant value); noticeable disruption. |\n| 4 | **High** | Significant impact; substantial financial exposure (5-25% of relevant value); regulatory scrutiny likely. |\n| 5 | **Critical** | Severe impact; major financial exposure (> 25% of relevant value); fundamental business disruption; regulatory action likely. |\n\n### Likelihood (probability the risk materializes)\n\n| Level | Label | Description |\n|---|---|---|\n| 1 | **Remote** | Highly unlikely; no known precedent; would require exceptional circumstances. |\n| 2 | **Unlikely** | Could occur but not expected; limited precedent; specific triggers needed. |\n| 3 | **Possible** | May occur; some precedent exists; triggering events are foreseeable. |\n| 4 | **Likely** | Probably will occur; clear precedent; common triggering events. |\n| 5 | **Almost Certain** | Expected to occur; strong precedent; triggers are present or imminent. |\n\n### Risk Score = Severity x Likelihood\n\n| Score Range | Risk Level | Color |\n|---|---|---|\n| 1-4 | Low Risk | GREEN |\n| 5-9 | Medium Risk | YELLOW |\n| 10-15 | High Risk | ORANGE |\n| 16-25 | Critical Risk | RED |\n\n### Multi-jurisdictional risk scoring\n\nWhen assessing risk across jurisdictions, score each jurisdiction independently. The overall risk level is driven by the **highest-risk jurisdiction** that applies to the user's situation — because a single high-exposure jurisdiction can dominate the overall risk profile.\n\nPresent the per-jurisdiction scores in a comparison table:\n\n```\n| Jurisdiction | Severity | Likelihood | Score | Level |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| France | 3 | 4 | 12 | ORANGE |\n| Germany | 2 | 3 | 6 | YELLOW |\n| EU (CJEU) | 4 | 3 | 12 | ORANGE |\n| **Overall** | | | **12** | **ORANGE** |\n```\n\nWhere jurisprudence diverges across jurisdictions, flag the divergence explicitly — it's a risk factor in itself, because it creates uncertainty about how the issue will be resolved in practice.\n\n## When to Escalate to Outside Counsel\n\nEngage outside counsel when:\n\n- **Active litigation** in any covered jurisdiction\n- **Government investigation** or regulatory inquiry\n- **Criminal exposure** for the organization or personnel\n- **Novel legal issues** or questions of first impression\n- **Jurisdictional conflict**: different jurisdictions reach opposite conclusions on the same question — this is inherently high-risk and benefits from local counsel in each jurisdiction\n- **Material financial exposure** exceeding the organization's risk tolerance\n- **Regulatory changes** requiring compliance program development across multiple countries\n"
}