legalcode-document-qa

Legalcode Document QA

Legalcode MCP Access

Use Legalcode MCP for source lookup while keeping documents and matter context in the user's agent environment.

• Public MCP: https://mcp.legalcode.md for anonymous laws and case law.
• Pro MCP: https://mcppro.legalcode.md for stronger search, up to 20 results per query, guidance, agreements, downloads, and authenticated higher-throughput access.
• Send only legal source lookup queries to Legalcode; keep client documents local to the agent.

Disclaimer: This skill provides a framework for AI-assisted document quality assurance. It does not constitute legal advice. All outputs should be reviewed by a qualified legal professional before use. This skill checks for drafting and formatting errors — it does not review substantive legal risk, negotiation positions, or the commercial adequacy of terms. Statutory and case law references cited from memory carry hallucination risk — verify against authoritative sources before relying on them.

Purpose and Scope

This skill runs a systematic quality assurance audit on a legal document across nine dimensions of drafting and formatting quality. It identifies errors, classifies them by severity, generates exact proposed corrections, and produces a prioritized correction report ready to implement.

Covers:

• Defined term audit (undefined, orphaned, duplicate, and miscapitalized terms)
• Cross-reference integrity (stale references, nonexistent sections)
• Party name consistency (synonym drift, signature block mismatches)
• Date and deadline logic (effective date ambiguity, impossible dates, notice period errors)
• Numbering and hierarchy (skipped items, inconsistent levels, non-parallel structure)
• Gender and pronoun consistency (mixed pronouns, orphaned pronoun antecedents)
• Formatting and layout (tracked changes, residual comments, font/spacing inconsistency)
• Signature block validation (missing dates, title omissions, entity name mismatches)
• Substance completeness gaps (missing essential provisions, undefined relative standards)

Does not:

• Assess substantive legal risk, commercial adequacy, or negotiation positions (see legalcode-contract-review for that analysis)
• Provide legal advice or replace qualified counsel
• Verify that the parties have authority to execute the document
• Assess whether a document's terms are enforceable under any particular governing law

Jurisdiction and Governing Law

This skill is jurisdiction-agnostic. Document QA checks — defined term consistency, cross-reference accuracy, formatting standards — apply regardless of governing law.

[JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC] When the document is governed by a specific jurisdiction, note:

• Signature block formality requirements (witnesses, notarization, seals) vary widely
• Some jurisdictions require documents in the local language or bilingual format
• Execution requirements for deeds, security instruments, and statutory filings differ
• Court filing formatting rules are jurisdiction-specific (margins, font size, line spacing)

---

Interactive Clarification

This skill uses interactive clarification at key decision points. The workflow pauses and asks when:

• The scope of the QA check needs to be confirmed (full audit vs. focused check)
• The document type affects which QA dimensions are most critical
• Ambiguous issues require user judgment to classify correctly

Use the ask-user-question pattern wherever marked with ⟁ CLARIFY below. If the user has already provided the information, skip the question and proceed.

---

Workflow

Step 1: Accept the Document

Accept the document in any of these formats:

• File: DOCX, PDF, or plain text
• Pasted text: Document content pasted directly into the conversation
• URL: Link to a document in a document management system or cloud storage

If no document is provided, prompt the user to supply one.

Step 2: Gather Context

⟁ CLARIFY — Before beginning the audit, ask the user these questions. Skip any already answered in the initial prompt:

1. Document type: What kind of legal document is this?

   • Options: Commercial contract / agreement, Employment document, Real estate instrument, Corporate governance document (board resolution, articles, minutes), Court filing, Regulatory submission, Policy or procedure, Other
   • Why this matters: Different document types have different essential provisions and signature block requirements. A deed requires witnesses; a board resolution requires specific recitals; a court filing has strict formatting rules.

2. Stage in the drafting process: Where is this document in the workflow?

   • Options: Initial draft (pre-negotiation), Redlined draft (mid-negotiation), Near-final (pre-execution), Final (ready to execute/file), Template audit (quality check a reusable template)
   • Why this matters: Near-final documents warrant the strictest QA pass. Templates need checks for leftover placeholders. Mid-negotiation redlines need a check that tracked changes are clean.

3. Scope: Should this be a full nine-dimension audit or a targeted check?

   • Options: Full audit (all nine dimensions), Defined terms only, Cross-references only, Custom focus (specify which dimensions)
   • Why this matters: A full audit is appropriate for near-final documents. Targeted checks are faster when the user knows the problem area.

4. Known issues: Are there any known problem areas to prioritize?

   • Free text. E.g., "The numbering went wrong after we moved sections around" or "Not sure if all the cross-references updated correctly."
   • Why this matters: Known issues get checked first and flagged prominently.

Proceed with reasonable defaults if the user provides partial context.

Step 3: Parse the Document Structure

Before running QA checks, map the document:

1. Identify the structure: Count sections/clauses, identify schedule/exhibit attachments, note if multiple documents are incorporated by reference.
2. Extract the party definitions: Find the Introduction or Recitals clause where parties are defined with their role-based defined terms (e.g., "ABC Corp. ('Supplier')").
3. Build the defined terms register: Extract all capitalized terms that appear to be defined (either in a Definitions section, on first use with quotes, or via definitional provisions). Note every location where each is defined.
4. Map the cross-reference targets: List every section/clause/schedule number that exists so cross-references can be validated against this map.

⟁ CLARIFY — If the document references external documents by incorporation ("as defined in the Master Agreement," "subject to the Schedules listed at Annex A"), ask whether those incorporated documents are available for cross-check, or whether the audit should proceed on the main document only.

Step 4: Run the Nine-Dimension QA Audit

Execute all applicable dimensions in order. For each dimension, produce a findings list using the format specified in the Correction Entry Format section.

Dimension 1: Defined Term Audit

What to check:

Check	Description	Default Severity
UNDEF	Capitalized term used in the operative provisions but not defined anywhere	CRITICAL
ORPHAN	Term defined but never used in the operative provisions	MEDIUM
DUPLICATE	Same term defined in more than one location with potentially different scope	HIGH
MISCAP	A defined term appears in lower case (or inconsistent case) in at least one location	HIGH
SYNONYM	Two or more different terms appear to mean the same thing (e.g., "Purchaser" and "Buyer" for the same party)	HIGH
CIRCULAR	A defined term's definition relies on another term that directly or indirectly relies on it	HIGH
NEVER-NEEDED	A term is defined with extensive qualification but could have been left as plain English	LOW

How to check:

1. Build a complete list of all capitalized terms in the document.
2. Cross-reference each against the definitions register built in Step 3.
3. For every instance in the operative provisions, verify the capitalization matches the defined form exactly.
4. Scan for synonym pairs by looking for terms that reference the same party, concept, or amount under different names.

⟁ CLARIFY — When a capitalized term appears without a definition but could plausibly be a deliberate use of a common-English capitalized word (e.g., "Party," "Law," "Person"), ask the user whether this is intentional before classifying as UNDEF.

Dimension 2: Cross-Reference Integrity

What to check:

Check	Description	Default Severity
MISSING-TARGET	Cross-reference points to a section, clause, exhibit, or schedule that does not exist in the document	CRITICAL
WRONG-NUMBER	Cross-reference appears to point to a real section but the number is wrong (e.g., "Section 4.2" exists but the reference should be "Section 4.3" based on context)	HIGH
SUBJECT-MISMATCH	The referenced section does not cover the subject matter stated in the cross-reference ("as defined in Section 2.1" but Section 2.1 doesn't define that term)	HIGH
MISSING-HEADING	Cross-reference uses a section number only, without the heading name — making errors invisible	LOW
STALE-AFTER-DELETION	The referenced section was deleted in a prior draft and no longer exists	CRITICAL

How to check:

1. Extract every cross-reference in the document (search for "Section," "Clause," "Schedule," "Exhibit," "Annex," "Appendix" followed by a number or letter).
2. Validate each reference against the section map built in Step 3.
3. For references that include both a number and a description, verify the description matches the referenced section's actual content or heading.

Dimension 3: Party Name Consistency

What to check:

Check	Description	Default Severity
INTRO-BODY-MISMATCH	A party's defined term in the Introduction differs from the term used in the body	CRITICAL
SYNONYM-DRIFT	A party is referred to by different terms in different parts of the document (e.g., "Buyer" in clauses 1–5, "Purchaser" in clauses 6–12)	HIGH
SIG-BLOCK-MISMATCH	The entity name in the signature block differs from the entity name in the Introduction or Parties clause	CRITICAL
FULL-NAME-USAGE	Party's full legal name is used in body clauses instead of the defined short-form term	MEDIUM
PRECEDENT-BLEED	A party name from a prior contract has been left in the document (copy-paste error)	CRITICAL
WRONG-PARTY	An obligation or right is attributed to the wrong party	HIGH

How to check:

1. Extract every occurrence of party names and defined party terms.
2. Build a party name map: legal name → defined term → signature block name.
3. Flag any inconsistency in any of the three layers.
4. Search the entire document for party names from other documents that may have been carried over by copy-paste (if you can identify them from context).

Dimension 4: Date and Deadline Logic

What to check:

Check	Description	Default Severity
NO-EFFECTIVE-DATE	Document does not explicitly state an effective date (relying only on execution date)	HIGH
DATE-ARITHMETIC	A deadline calculated from the effective date or execution date does not match the stated date (e.g., "30 days from the Effective Date" but the stated deadline is wrong)	HIGH
IMPOSSIBLE-DATE	A date that cannot exist (February 29 in a non-leap year, day-of-week mismatch, dates before 1900)	CRITICAL
DATE-INCONSISTENCY	The same event has different dates in different parts of the document	CRITICAL
RETROACTIVE-AMBIGUITY	Effective date is earlier than the execution date with no provision addressing the retroactive period's obligations	MEDIUM
NOTICE-ARITHMETIC	Notice period stated in one clause is inconsistent with the termination/renewal logic in another clause	HIGH
FORMAT-INCONSISTENCY	Dates use different formats in different places (e.g., "March 15, 2025" in one clause and "15/03/2025" in another)	LOW

How to check:

1. Extract every date mentioned in the document with its location and purpose.
2. Check each against the leap-year calendar and day-of-week calendar.
3. Trace the notice period arithmetic: identify the governing term length, renewal cycle, and notice windows, and verify they are internally consistent.
4. Check format consistency across all date references.

Dimension 5: Numbering and Hierarchy

What to check:

Check	Description	Default Severity
SKIPPED-NUMBER	A list or section sequence skips a number (e.g., items 1, 2, 4, 5 — 3 is missing)	MEDIUM
DUPLICATE-NUMBER	Two different items share the same number	HIGH
HIERARCHY-INCONSISTENCY	Heading levels are applied inconsistently (e.g., some third-level headings use bold, others use indented plain text)	MEDIUM
NON-PARALLEL-STRUCTURE	Items in the same list use inconsistent grammatical structure	MEDIUM
NUMERAL-WORD-INCONSISTENCY	Numbers are sometimes spelled out ("fifteen") and sometimes in numerals ("15") for the same category	LOW
ORDINAL-INCONSISTENCY	Ordinals switch between "1st" and "first" form	LOW
POST-EDIT-DRIFT	Numbering was not updated after a section was moved, added, or deleted	HIGH

How to check:

1. Walk through every numbered list and heading to verify the sequence is complete and correct.
2. Check that headings at the same level follow a consistent visual and structural pattern.
3. Check grammatical parallelism within each list (all items should complete the same stem).
4. Identify any numbering that appears to have not been updated after structural changes.

Dimension 6: Gender and Pronoun Consistency

What to check:

Check	Description	Default Severity
MIXED-GENDERED	Document uses "he" in some clauses and "she" or "they" in others for the same role	HIGH
GENDERED-FOR-ENTITY	A corporate entity is referred to as "he" or "she" instead of "it"	MEDIUM
ORPHANED-PRONOUN	A pronoun ("it," "they," "he," "she") appears without a clear antecedent — ambiguous referent	HIGH
RESIDUAL-GENDERED	Gendered pronouns remain from a precedent document that were intended to be replaced	MEDIUM
INCONSISTENT-APPROACH	Document adopts different gender-neutrality techniques in different clauses (e.g., role-based terms in Section 1, singular "they" in Section 2, noun repetition in Section 3)	LOW

How to check:

1. Search for "he," "she," "his," "her," "him," "himself," "herself" throughout the document.
2. For each occurrence, identify whether it is intentional (referencing a specific named individual) or a drafting residue.
3. Verify that each pronoun has a clear and unambiguous antecedent in its sentence or the preceding sentence.
4. Check that the approach to gender neutrality is consistent throughout.

Dimension 7: Formatting and Layout

What to check:

Check	Description	Default Severity
TRACKED-CHANGES	Document contains accepted or unaccepted tracked changes in the final version	HIGH
RESIDUAL-COMMENTS	Document contains comment bubbles or review annotations	HIGH
PLACEHOLDER-TEXT	Document contains "[INSERT]", "TBD," "DRAFT," or similar placeholder text	CRITICAL
FONT-INCONSISTENCY	Body text uses inconsistent fonts, sizes, or weights	MEDIUM
SPACING-INCONSISTENCY	Line spacing or paragraph spacing is inconsistent within sections	LOW
PAGE-NUMBERING	Page numbers are missing, restarted mid-document, or formatted inconsistently	MEDIUM
HIDDEN-METADATA	Prior party names, author information, or document history carried in metadata	MEDIUM
BLANK-FIELDS	Date lines, party address blocks, or other fill-in fields are left blank	HIGH
WRONG-DOCUMENT-TITLE	Document title or header carries the name of a prior document	HIGH

How to check:

1. Scan for tracked change markup and comment annotations.
2. Search for placeholder strings: "[INSERT," "[ADD," "[TBD," "[DATE," "[NAME," "DRAFT," "XX."
3. Review page numbering sequence across the full document.
4. Check that document title, header, and footer are consistent and correct.
5. Check font and spacing consistency by sampling multiple sections.

Dimension 8: Signature Block Validation

What to check:

Check	Description	Default Severity
MISSING-DATE-LINE	A party's signature block does not include a date line	HIGH
MISSING-TITLE	A corporate signatory's signature block does not include a title line	HIGH
ENTITY-MISMATCH	The entity name in the signature block differs from the entity name in the Introduction	CRITICAL
MISSING-WITNESS	A signature block that requires a witness (deed, statutory form) has no witness block	CRITICAL
MISSING-NOTARY	A signature block that requires notarization has no notarial certificate block	CRITICAL
COUNTERPARTS-MISSING	A multi-party document has no counterparts clause permitting separate execution	MEDIUM
WRONG-PARTY-COUNT	Fewer signature blocks than contracting parties, or additional signature blocks for non-parties	HIGH
AUTHORITY-RECITAL	No "duly authorized" or equivalent authority recital for corporate signatories	MEDIUM

How to check:

1. Count the signature blocks and compare to the number of named contracting parties.
2. For each signature block, verify: entity name matches Introduction clause, date line present, title line present for corporate signatories.
3. Identify the document type and check whether witnesses or notarization are required.
4. Verify a counterparts clause is present if parties will sign separately.

⟁ CLARIFY — Whether witnesses or notarization are required depends on the jurisdiction and document type. If unclear, ask the user before classifying these as CRITICAL, since the requirement varies: deeds in England & Wales require witnesses; mortgages in many US states require notarization; corporate resolutions require board authorization recitals. Flag the check as [JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC] if the user cannot confirm.

Dimension 9: Substance Completeness Gaps

This dimension checks only for the presence or absence of fundamental provisions — not their substantive quality (which is the domain of contract review skills).

What to check:

Check	Description	Default Severity
NO-PARTIES	Document does not identify the contracting parties	CRITICAL
NO-GOVERNING-LAW	Document has no governing law or jurisdiction clause	HIGH
NO-TERM	Document has no stated term, commencement date, or duration	HIGH
NO-DISPUTE-RESOLUTION	Document has no dispute resolution mechanism	HIGH
UNDEFINED-STANDARD	Document uses undefined relative standards ("promptly," "reasonable efforts," "materially") without qualification or context	MEDIUM
AMBIGUOUS-OBLIGATION	An operative clause cannot be determined to impose an obligation ("shall") or grant discretion ("may") from its language	HIGH
INCOMPLETE-PROVISION	A provision appears incomplete — stops mid-sentence, references a section not yet drafted	CRITICAL

How to check:

1. Verify the document identifies all contracting parties with their legal names and roles.
2. Check for governing law and dispute resolution clauses.
3. Check for any defined commencement date or term duration.
4. Search for "promptly," "reasonable," "material," "timely," "appropriate," and similar relative standards — note occurrences and assess whether context makes them sufficiently specific.
5. Check every operative clause for clear shall/may distinction.

⟁ CLARIFY — For documents where some of these elements are intentionally absent (e.g., side letters, amendments that incorporate the main agreement by reference), confirm with the user before flagging as gaps.

Step 5: Classify and Score Each Finding

For every finding, assign a severity level from the Issue Severity Classification section below. Then apply the Prioritization Framework to rank all findings.

⟁ CLARIFY — For any borderline CRITICAL/HIGH classification where the severity depends on business context not visible in the document, present both classifications and ask:

• "This placeholder text '[INSERT GOVERNING LAW]' could be a CRITICAL issue (key term missing from near-final document) or a HIGH issue (intentional placeholder in a working draft). Which stage is this document at?"

Step 6: Generate Correction Report

For each finding, generate a complete correction entry using the Correction Entry Format below. Organize findings by:

1. First: CRITICAL issues (in order of appearance in document)
2. Then: HIGH issues
3. Then: MEDIUM issues
4. Then: LOW issues

Step 7: Quality Verification

Before delivering the correction report, run these checks:

1. Run the 5 Citation Quality Gates silently.
2. For every CRITICAL finding, run the Self-Interrogation 2-pass review.
3. Assign a Confidence Score to each finding.
4. Verify the correction entry is complete: location identified, proposed correction provided, not just a description of the problem.
5. Generate the Glass Box Audit Trail and append to the output.

Step 8: Deliver the Correction Report

Deliver the output using the Output Format Template below.

⟁ CLARIFY — For large documents with many findings, ask the user whether to:

• Deliver the full correction report (all findings with corrections)
• Deliver an executive summary first (counts by severity, top issues) followed by the full report on request
• Focus on CRITICAL and HIGH only (fastest path to a signable document)

---

Issue Severity Classification

CRITICAL — Fix Before Any Further Use

Errors that create legal ambiguity, could void or misapply provisions, or will cause material problems at execution or in dispute resolution.

Examples:

• Capitalized term used in operative provision with no definition
• Cross-reference to a section that does not exist
• Party name in signature block differs from Introduction clause
• Placeholder text ("TBD," "[INSERT]") in near-final or final document
• Date that is mathematically impossible
• Incomplete provision (truncated sentence or missing operative clause)
• Witness or notarization block absent where legally required

Action: Provide an exact proposed correction. Do not deliver the document without resolving CRITICAL items.

HIGH — Fix Before Execution

Errors that materially affect the document's quality, create interpretive risk, or are likely to be challenged by a counterparty or court.

Examples:

• Duplicate definitions for the same term
• Wrong section number in a cross-reference (right concept, wrong number)
• Party name synonym drift ("Buyer" / "Purchaser")
• Date logic errors (notice period arithmetic inconsistency)
• Tracked changes remaining in the document
• Missing date line or title line in signature block
• Residual comment bubbles in final version
• Blank fill-in fields (address, date)

Action: Provide an exact proposed correction and flag for review before execution.

MEDIUM — Fix in Revision

Errors that reduce document quality and may create minor interpretive issues, but do not create immediate legal risk.

Examples:

• Orphaned (unused) definitions
• Inconsistent pronoun use within the same document
• Non-parallel list structure
• Heading hierarchy inconsistency
• Retroactive effective date without clarifying language
• Undefined relative standards ("promptly") in non-critical provisions

Action: Provide a proposed correction and a brief note on why the fix improves the document.

LOW — Optional Cleanup

Minor editorial or stylistic inconsistencies that do not affect legal meaning.

Examples:

• Date format inconsistency across clauses
• Ordinal inconsistency ("1st" / "first")
• Numeral/word inconsistency for the same category of numbers
• Spacing or font inconsistency between sections
• Missing section heading names in cross-references

Action: Note the issue and the preferred consistent approach. Implement during the next revision cycle.

---

Correction Entry Format

For every finding, provide a complete correction entry:

**Finding**: [CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW] — [Dimension] — [Check Code]
**Location**: [Section/Clause reference, page number if available, or quoted text]
**Description**: [One sentence explaining the error and its potential legal impact]
**Current text**: "[Exact quoted text from the document showing the error]"
**Proposed correction**: "[Exact replacement text, ready to insert]"
**Confidence**: [Definite / High / Probable / Possible — see Confidence Scoring]

---

Prioritization Framework

When presenting findings, organize by these tiers:

Tier 1 — Pre-Execution Blockers (All CRITICAL Items)

Issues that must be resolved before the document is used for any purpose. A document with unresolved CRITICAL items should not be executed, filed, or delivered.

• Any undefined capitalized term used in operative provisions
• Any cross-reference to a nonexistent section
• Any party name mismatch between Introduction and signature block
• Any placeholder text in a near-final document
• Any legally impossible date
• Any incomplete provision
• Any missing witness/notary block where required

Instruction: Resolve all Tier 1 items before circulating the document further.

Tier 2 — Pre-Execution Preferred (All HIGH Items)

Issues that materially affect quality and should be resolved before the document is executed or formally delivered, but do not necessarily require halting progress.

• Duplicate definitions, synonym drift, tracked changes, date arithmetic errors
• Missing signature block elements, blank fill-in fields

Instruction: Assign to the responsible drafter with a target resolution date that falls before the execution deadline.

Tier 3 — Revision Cycle Items (MEDIUM and LOW Items)

Issues that improve document quality but can be addressed in the next revision cycle, at a dedicated template cleanup session, or over time.

Instruction: Log these findings in the document management system. Resolve during the next scheduled revision rather than holding up execution.

---

Quality Assurance Framework

Citation Quality Gates

Run these 5 gates silently before delivering any output. Revise before delivering if any gate fails.

Gate	Rule	Fail Action
Source	Every classification as CRITICAL is based on an identifiable error in the document, not speculation	Add specific location reference or downgrade to HIGH
Format	Every proposed correction is in exact, ready-to-insert form	Provide specific language rather than vague guidance
Currency	Every check for jurisdiction-specific requirements is marked [JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC] when not universally applicable	Add marker and clarifying note
Domain	Analysis stays within the document QA scope — do not venture into substantive legal risk analysis	Remove or mark [OUT OF SCOPE FOR QA]
Confidence	Uncertainty explicitly stated — do not classify an error as CRITICAL if the intent is ambiguous	Add confidence qualifier or downgrade severity

Self-Interrogation for CRITICAL Items

For any item classified as CRITICAL, apply this 2-pass review before delivering:

Pass 1 — Error Verification: Is the error actually present in the document? Could the apparent error be intentional (e.g., a term left undefined because it has a plain English meaning, a deliberate retroactive effective date)?

Pass 2 — Correction Completeness: Is the proposed correction specific and ready to implement? Does it resolve the full scope of the error, or only the most obvious manifestation?

If either pass reveals a weakness, revise the finding before delivery.

Confidence Scoring

Level	Range	Meaning	Action
Definite	0.95-1.0	Error is unambiguous and verifiable from the text alone	State with confidence
High	0.80-0.94	Strong evidence of an error, minor ambiguity possible	State with brief caveat
Probable	0.60-0.79	Likely an error, but could be intentional	Flag with note: "[Verify intent with drafter]"
Possible	0.40-0.59	Possible error, genuinely uncertain	Flag for human review rather than correcting
Unlikely	0.0-0.39	Weak basis — may not be an error	Do not flag as an error; note as an observation

---

Glass Box Audit Trail

Every QA audit MUST include a Glass Box audit section:

glass_box:
  skill_name: "legalcode-document-qa"
  document: "[Document title and date]"
  document_type: "[Contract / Deed / Policy / Court Filing / etc.]"
  document_stage: "[Draft / Near-final / Final / Template]"
  dimensions_audited:
    - "Defined Term Audit"
    - "Cross-Reference Integrity"
    - "Party Name Consistency"
    - "Date and Deadline Logic"
    - "Numbering and Hierarchy"
    - "Gender and Pronoun Consistency"
    - "Formatting and Layout"
    - "Signature Block Validation"
    - "Substance Completeness Gaps"
  findings_summary:
    critical: "[N]"
    high: "[N]"
    medium: "[N]"
    low: "[N]"
    total: "[N]"
  legalcode_mcp: "Connected / Not connected"
  self_interrogation: "PASS / REVISED / NOT APPLICABLE (no CRITICAL items)"
  confidence: "HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW — [rationale]"
  limitations:
    - "[Any scope limitations — e.g., 'Incorporated documents not reviewed', 'Metadata not accessible']"
    - "[Any jurisdiction-specific checks deferred — e.g., 'Witness requirement not confirmed for jurisdiction']"
  reviewer: "AI-assisted — requires qualified legal review before execution"

---

Anti-Patterns

Explicit catalogue of what NOT to do when running a document QA audit:

1. Flagging intentional capitalization as undefined terms — Not every capitalized word is a defined term. "Government," "Law," "Person," and "Agreement" are commonly capitalized without a definition because they have accepted plain-English meanings. Check whether a capitalized word is being used as a technical defined term before classifying it as UNDEF.

2. Correcting substance under the guise of QA — The scope of this skill is drafting and formatting errors. Identifying a liability cap as "too low" or an indemnification clause as "too broad" is substantive legal analysis, not document QA. Stay in scope.

3. Generating vague proposed corrections — "Update the cross-reference" is not a correction. A correction must state the exact replacement text: "Replace 'Section 4.2' with 'Section 4.3 (Payment Terms)'." The correction must be ready to insert.

4. Missing the holistic defined-term picture — Auditing defined terms one by one without building a complete register first. The most important checks — synonym drift, duplicate definitions, and orphaned definitions — are only visible when you hold the full picture of every defined term in the document simultaneously.

5. Classifying all missing elements as CRITICAL — The absence of a governing law clause in a near-final commercial agreement is HIGH. The same absence in a side letter to an agreement that already specifies governing law may be intentional and fine. Context matters; apply the severity classification thoughtfully.

6. Skipping Dimension 7 (Formatting) because it seems trivial — Tracked changes and residual comment bubbles in an "executed" version of a contract have caused significant litigation. The document parties execute must be clean. Tracked changes are HIGH, not LOW.

7. Running QA without a section map — Validating cross-references by searching for the referenced section number without first building a complete list of all sections in the document will miss cases where both the reference and the target are wrong. Build the section map first.

8. Ignoring incorporated documents — Many contracts incorporate schedules, exhibits, annexes, or external agreements by reference. A cross-reference may be technically correct in the main agreement but point to a section in an attached schedule that has been deleted. Ask whether incorporated documents are available.

9. Correcting pronoun consistency by always choosing one approach — There are multiple valid approaches to gender-neutral drafting (role-based terms, singular "they," noun repetition). The goal is consistency within the document, not imposing a particular style. Flag inconsistency; do not override a deliberate drafting choice.

10. Flagging "DRAFT" as CRITICAL when the document is, in fact, a draft — Placeholder text and "DRAFT" watermarks are appropriate in working documents. The stage-context from Step 2 determines whether a placeholder is CRITICAL (near-final document), HIGH (clean draft being shared externally), or acceptable (internal working version).

11. Validating dates without checking the calendar — Stating "February 30 is an invalid date" is obvious. The subtler checks — February 29 in non-leap years (e.g., 2025), day-of-week mismatches (e.g., "Wednesday, March 15, 2025" when March 15, 2025 was a Saturday), and notice period arithmetic — require actually calculating against a calendar. Do the math.

12. Delivering corrections without locations — A correction without a location reference ("Clause 4.2, second sentence") cannot be implemented. Every correction entry must include the exact location so the drafter can find it in seconds.

13. Treating party name consistency as a low-priority check — Party name inconsistency ("Buyer" / "Purchaser") is a documented source of contract disputes. Courts have held that inconsistent use of party name terms can create ambiguity about which party an obligation was intended to bind. Classify synonym drift as HIGH, not MEDIUM.

14. Single-dimension analysis — Running only the defined terms check because that is what the user asked about, then overlooking a signature block mismatch or a CRITICAL broken cross-reference. Unless the user explicitly requests a targeted check, run all nine dimensions. The most dangerous errors are often not in the dimension the user suspected.

15. Confusing substantive gaps with QA gaps — A missing limitation of liability clause is a substantive risk issue (→ legalcode-contract-review). A missing governing law clause in a document type that always requires one is a completeness gap (→ this skill). The distinction is: QA gaps are about whether the document is correctly assembled; substantive gaps are about whether the terms protect the client.

---

Writing Standards

Apply plain-language discipline to all output:

For correction descriptions (may be shared with the drafting team):

• State the error and its potential impact in one sentence
• Active voice: "Section 4.2 references 'Section 7.5' which does not exist" not "Section 7.5 is referenced by Section 4.2 but cannot be found"
• Short sentences. One issue per entry.
• Name the location precisely: clause number, sentence position, or quoted text

For proposed corrections:

• Provide exact replacement text in quotation marks
• If deletion is required, state: "Delete '[quoted text]' in its entirety"
• If addition is required, state: "Insert '[text]' after '[anchor text]'"
• Never say "update the reference" without specifying the exact update

Quality gates before delivery:

1. Does every CRITICAL finding include an exact proposed correction?
2. Is every location reference specific enough for a drafter to find without searching?
3. Is the executive summary accurate (does the finding count match the corrections listed)?
4. Are all jurisdiction-specific checks correctly marked [JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC]?
5. Could any correction be misread as a substantive legal position? If yes, add a note clarifying that it is a drafting quality observation only.

---

External Tool Integration

With legalcode-mcp connected (preferred):

• Verify jurisdiction-specific signature block requirements (witness, notarization, seal requirements) for the document's governing law
• Check whether specific document types require mandatory provisions under the applicable jurisdiction's law
• Verify current date-related legal requirements (notice periods under specific statutes, statutory form requirements)
• Mark all legalcode-mcp-sourced legal requirements as VERIFIED in the Glass Box audit trail

Without legalcode-mcp:

• Mark all jurisdiction-specific checks with [JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC] and [VERIFY]
• Note in the Glass Box: legalcode_mcp: "Not connected"
• Flag signature block completeness checks as "requires jurisdiction-specific verification — [VERIFY witness/notarization requirements]"
• Focus the QA on the seven non-jurisdiction-dependent dimensions: defined terms, cross-references, party names, dates, numbering, pronouns, and formatting

---

Localization Notes

The nine QA dimensions are largely universal, but several jurisdiction-specific overlays apply:

Signature block requirements:

• England & Wales: Deeds require two witnesses OR a company execution under s.44 CA 2006 ("executed as a deed" wording + two authorized signatories or one authorized signatory and a witness) [VERIFY current requirements]
• US: Notarization requirements vary by state and document type; powers of attorney and real estate instruments typically require notarization [VERIFY state-specific rules]
• Civil law jurisdictions: Many require notarization or apostille for certain instruments; authentic act form may be required for real property transactions [VERIFY]
• Australia: Requirements differ by state; deeds executed by companies require execution under s.127 Corporations Act 2001 or by an attorney [VERIFY]

Language requirements:

• Several jurisdictions require contracts to be in the local language or in bilingual form (France — Law No. 94-665, Belgium, Quebec) [VERIFY current requirements]. A QA audit of a document intended for use in such jurisdictions should flag if only an English version is present.

Date format conventions:

• Day-month-year format is standard in most of the world; month-day-year is standard in the US. A date written "3/4/2025" is ambiguous cross-jurisdictionally. Flag any date not written in unambiguous long-form (e.g., "March 4, 2025" or "4 March 2025").

---

Output Format Template

Structure the final deliverable as:

## Document QA Report

**Document**: [Document title / identifier]
**Document Type**: [Contract / Deed / Policy / Filing / etc.]
**Document Stage**: [Draft / Near-final / Final / Template]
**Audit Date**: [date]
**Dimensions Audited**: [List of dimensions audited]

---

## Executive Summary

| Severity | Count |
|----------|-------|
| CRITICAL | [N]   |
| HIGH     | [N]   |
| MEDIUM   | [N]   |
| LOW      | [N]   |
| **Total** | **[N]** |

**Assessment**: [1-2 sentence assessment of the document's overall QA status, e.g.,
"This document has 2 CRITICAL issues that must be resolved before execution: an undefined
capitalized term in the payment clause and a broken cross-reference in the termination
clause. Once resolved, the document is otherwise in good shape with 4 HIGH items and 6
MEDIUM items that should be addressed before signing."]

**Recommendation**: [HOLD — resolve CRITICAL issues first / PROCEED WITH CAUTION — HIGH
items should be resolved / CLEAR FOR EXECUTION — only MEDIUM/LOW items remain]

---

## Tier 1 — Pre-Execution Blockers (CRITICAL)

[List each CRITICAL finding using the Correction Entry Format]

---

## Tier 2 — Pre-Execution Preferred (HIGH)

[List each HIGH finding using the Correction Entry Format]

---

## Tier 3 — Revision Cycle Items (MEDIUM and LOW)

[List each MEDIUM/LOW finding using the Correction Entry Format]

---

## Dimensions Audited — Summary by Category

| Dimension | Status | Findings |
|-----------|--------|----------|
| 1. Defined Term Audit | PASS / ISSUES | [N] findings |
| 2. Cross-Reference Integrity | PASS / ISSUES | [N] findings |
| 3. Party Name Consistency | PASS / ISSUES | [N] findings |
| 4. Date and Deadline Logic | PASS / ISSUES | [N] findings |
| 5. Numbering and Hierarchy | PASS / ISSUES | [N] findings |
| 6. Gender and Pronoun Consistency | PASS / ISSUES | [N] findings |
| 7. Formatting and Layout | PASS / ISSUES | [N] findings |
| 8. Signature Block Validation | PASS / ISSUES | [N] findings |
| 9. Substance Completeness Gaps | PASS / ISSUES | [N] findings |

---

[Glass Box Audit Trail — YAML as specified above]

---

Provenance

Created by Legalcode (2026-03-21). Original synthesis drawing on:

• Ken Adams, A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting (5th ed., ABA Publishing) — the leading reference on defined term precision, obligation/discretion distinction, and language consistency in commercial contracts [VERIFY current edition]
• ABA Business Law Today (November 2024) — analysis of busted cross-references and their legal consequences
• PerfectIt, LexCheck, Litera Contract Companion, and CrossCheck feature documentation — representing industry consensus on the most important automated QA checks
• BC Law Institute, Gender Diversity in Legal Writing (2021)
• Thomson Reuters research on the frequency and cost of legal document drafting errors
• Definely analysis: "Document and contract errors could lead to claims against your firm"
• Weagree contract drafting principles (date and consistency guidance)
• Lawyers Mutual NC: "Drafting Errors: Small Mistakes Can Lead to Big Claims"
• Legalcode cross-reference-analyzer skill structural patterns (Legalcode original, 2026-03-21) — adapted defined-terms and cross-reference analysis dimensions
• Legalcode contract-review skill quality frameworks (Legalcode original, 2026-02-27) — Citation Quality Gates, Self-Interrogation, Confidence Scoring, and Glass Box audit trail patterns adapted to the document QA context