Update to Lucia

{
  "description": "Review supplied contracts for a represented party, producing clause-level issues, source quotations, reasons and proposed wording for lawyer review. Use for contract risk and negotiation review, not a standalone legal-research question.",
  "included_files": [
    {
      "relative_path": "references/contratti-italiani.md",
      "size_in_bytes": 1833
    },
    {
      "relative_path": "references/document-workflow.md",
      "size_in_bytes": 8336
    },
    {
      "relative_path": "references/fonti-italiane.md",
      "size_in_bytes": 3982
    },
    {
      "relative_path": "references/matter-progress.md",
      "size_in_bytes": 2864
    },
    {
      "relative_path": "references/practice-workflow.md",
      "size_in_bytes": 4922
    },
    {
      "relative_path": "references/prassi-italiana.md",
      "size_in_bytes": 5767
    },
    {
      "relative_path": "references/upstream/LICENSE",
      "size_in_bytes": 1061
    },
    {
      "relative_path": "references/upstream/PROVENANCE.json",
      "size_in_bytes": 1027
    },
    {
      "relative_path": "references/upstream/nda-review.md",
      "size_in_bytes": 8746
    },
    {
      "relative_path": "references/word-handoff.md",
      "size_in_bytes": 5234
    }
  ],
  "name": "revisione-contratti",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: revisione-contratti\ndescription: Review supplied contracts for a represented party, producing clause-level issues, source quotations, reasons and proposed wording for lawyer review. Use for contract risk and negotiation review, not a standalone legal-research question.\n---\n<!-- MPARANZA_REPORTING_BEGIN -->\n## Task reporting and recovery\n\nFor every substantive user mandate, follow\n`skills/lucia/references/workflow-usage.md` from this installation's root.\nStart one primary task before preparation, using `usage/pipelines.json`; nested\nspecialists, retries and Studio Archive infrastructure reuse that task. Record\nonly the observed whole-task outcome. Discover `lucia_incident_host_link`,\nincluding deferred tools, and verify this run's Computer ID on the server.\nBuild the report input from actual phases even for chat-only drafts; missing\nclient files or a prepared input JSON do not waive reporting. Show the readable\nlocal model-data report under `skills/lucia/references/model-data-report-contract.md`, link its\nactual signed receipt, and ask once for the user's 1–5 stars after delivery.\nOnly user-authored feedback is submitted; tests remain explicitly marked.\nFollow `skills/lucia/references/incident-recovery.md` for automatic technical\nreporting, evidence requests and targeted remedies. Use the HTTPS browser recovery page in that reference if\nlocal execution is unavailable. Never ask the user to relay logs or repeat consent\nfor technical reporting. Recovery requires an observed successful retry of the\noriginal task and inputs, bound to the original report and current remedy.\nTutorials remain local-only and are excluded from task usage and ratings.\n<!-- MPARANZA_REPORTING_END -->\n\n\n# Revisione contratti\n\nSe l'utente richiede la tabella delle posizioni negoziali di un Word revisionato,\nleggi `../posizioni-negoziali/SKILL.md` e riusa prove e contesto già preparati.\n\nRead `references/document-workflow.md` and `references/prassi-italiana.md` before\nstarting. Use `references/contratti-italiani.md` for contract/NDA reading questions. This is a native Lucia workflow: no Mike application,\nserver, API key, external model API, remote document service or automatic research.\n\nEstablish the represented party, commercial objective, version and review scope.\nAsk about the party when it would change the advice; do not default to one side.\nKeep applicable law separate from language. An unknown jurisdiction permits\ntextual/commercial review with explicit limits, not an enforceability conclusion.\n\nInspect the whole selected contract, definitions and supplied schedules. Identify\nmissing incorporated materials. Choose topics from the actual contract and brief.\nApply the Italian practice guide to the facts and applicable law. Distinguish\nconsumer protection from specific approval of standard terms, and legal objections\nfrom negotiation preferences. No checklist item is universally required.\n\nFor each issue distinguish the observed wording, its implication for this client,\nthe reason for concern and a proposed change or negotiation fallback. Quote the\nclause and its exact evidence anchor. Explain any severity in the client's context;\nthe local code does not score legal risk. Include acceptable provisions where\nneeded to make the review intelligible, and retain unreadable/unreviewed topics.\nCheck definitions, cross-references, conflicting clauses, dates and schedules.\n\nPopulate the review and render the evidence-linked HTML and spreadsheet. Deliver\nthe few decisions that matter most, the full issue list and coverage limitations.\nProposed wording is a proposal, not a silent modification of the contract.\nWhen the lawyer requests a redline or comments in Word, read\n`references/word-handoff.md` and use the host Documents/Word skill to produce and\nverify a new DOCX with native revisions. Carry the quoted clause, proposed wording\nand reason into that handoff; preserve the original and earlier reviewers' edits.\nDo not label a quote match as legal verification. If a conclusion depends on law\nnot supplied, state that it needs separate source-backed research; reuse the\nexisting legal-question workflow only when the user requests that wider work.\n\nAdapted from Mike workflows; see `references/upstream/PROVENANCE.json` and\n`references/upstream/LICENSE`. The original snapshots are attribution/history, not runtime instructions. Lucia’s\nItalian method is maintained independently; upstream changes are optional inputs.\n"
}