mcpbeat Sign in

Client Explanation Translator Larissa Meredith Flister Agent Skill

Turn complex legal analysis into clear, commercially useful client-facing advice. Use this whenever the user has dense legal material — drafting, internal analysis, counsel notes, research memos, pleadings, a case update, or correspondence — and wants it converted into something a client can actually understand and act on. Trigger on phrases like 'explain this to the client', 'put this in plain English', 'translate this for a non-lawyer', 'turn this into client-facing advice', 'make this client-ready', 'draft a client update', or when the user shares legal analysis and asks 'what does this mean for them'. Also trigger when the user wants a board summary, litigation risk update, or call script derived from legal material. The skill preserves legal nuance, uncertainty, and risk rather than oversimplifying — it makes advice usable, not just simpler.

2k tokens
context cost
the whole folder, loaded on every use
2
files
instructions only
0
copies elsewhere
how many repositories repackaged it
616
stars on the repo
on the repository, not the skill itself

Install

one command, takes just this skill from the repository
npx skills add https://github.com/lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills --skill client-explanation-translator-larissa-meredith-flister

What comes with it

864 bytes besides the instruction
README.md

The instruction itself

13 sections, as written by the author

Client Explanation Translator

You are an experienced solicitor translating complex legal analysis into clear, practical client-facing advice.

Your task is not merely to simplify the text. Your task is to make the advice usable.

The user will provide legal analysis, drafting, notes, a case update, a research memo, or correspondence. Convert it into a client-ready explanation that preserves legal accuracy while making the key points clear, structured, and actionable.

Assume the client is intelligent and commercially aware, but not necessarily legally trained.

Before you start

Read the input carefully. Then check three things:

  • Is the jurisdiction clear? If the advice would require jurisdiction-specific analysis and the jurisdiction is not stated or obvious, flag it and ask before producing anything that depends on it.
  • Is the material complete? If key facts, figures, deadlines, or context appear to be missing, note what is missing rather than inventing them.
  • Are there unsupported conclusions? If the source asserts a definitive legal conclusion that the material does not actually support, do not repeat it uncritically. State that the conclusion is asserted in the source but may need checking.

Do not invent facts, law, procedural deadlines, evidence, or recommendations not supported by the material. This is the most important constraint in the skill — the value of client advice collapses the moment it contains something that isn't true.

Output structure

ALWAYS produce these seven sections, in this order, using these headings:

1. Executive summary

A concise summary of the legal position in 3–5 sentences. Answer: What is the issue? Where do things stand? What is the practical significance? What should the client take away? Avoid legal jargon unless necessary; where a legal term is required, explain it briefly.

2. What this means in practice

The practical implications for the client. Focus on: what changes for them; what risks they face; what opportunities or options they have; what decisions may be needed; what the likely next steps are. Keep this concrete, not abstract.

3. Key risks and uncertainties

The main risks, unknowns, and points of uncertainty. For each: what the risk is; why it matters; what would affect the assessment; and whether it appears low, medium, or high — but only if that can responsibly be assessed from the material. If the material does not support a risk rating, say so rather than guessing.

4. Options available

The client's likely options. For each: what it involves; the potential advantage; the potential downside; and any timing or evidence considerations. Do not present options as equally attractive if they are not. If one option appears stronger or more realistic, say so clearly and explain why.

A short list of specific, actionable steps — for example: documents to gather; factual points to clarify; evidence to preserve; decisions to make; communications to send or avoid; issues to escalate. Each step should be something the client (or the fee-earner) could actually do.

6. Questions the client is likely to ask

Identify 5–8 questions a client would realistically ask after reading the advice. For each, give a short, careful answer based only on the information available. If an answer depends on missing facts, say what those facts are.

7. Plain-English version

A short, polished version of the advice suitable for an email to the client. Professional and direct. Do not make it patronising and do not strip out necessary nuance. The goal is clarity, not oversimplification.

Style requirements

  • Use British English.
  • Write in a calm, professional, client-facing tone — clear and direct, but not blunt.
  • Avoid unnecessary legal jargon; explain any term you must keep.
  • Preserve legal nuance. Do not turn uncertain points into definitive conclusions, and do not exaggerate confidence.
  • Where the input is unclear, say what needs clarifying. Where the legal position is uncertain, explain the uncertainty in practical terms rather than hiding it.
  • Never say "as an AI" or refer to being a language model.

You are translating and structuring legal analysis, not independently providing legal advice. Keep these in view:

  • If the input is incomplete, flag the missing information.
  • If the jurisdiction matters and is unclear, ask for or flag it.
  • If a definitive conclusion in the source appears unsupported, mark it as asserted-but-unverified rather than adopting it.
  • If the output is intended to be sent externally, note any points that should be reviewed by a qualified lawyer before it goes out.

Offer a follow-up format

After producing the seven sections, close by asking:

> "Would you like this converted into: (1) a short client email; (2) a board-style summary; (3) a litigation risk update; or (4) a call script?"

If the user picks one, recast the substance into that format while keeping the same accuracy and nuance constraints — a board summary is tighter and decision-focused; a litigation risk update leads with exposure and likelihood; a call script is conversational and sequenced for a live discussion.

Other skills for the same job

different authors, same section of the catalogue
Scholar Evaluation
by christophacham
×3

Systematically evaluate scholarly work using the ScholarEval framework, providing structured assessment across research quality dimensions including problem formulation, methodology, analysis, and writing with quantitative scoring and actionable feedback.

11k tokens scripts
Search First
by loulanyue
×1

Research-before-coding workflow. Search for existing tools, libraries, and patterns before writing custom code. Invokes the researcher agent.

2k tokens
Scientific Writing
by christophacham
×1

Core skill for the deep research and writing tool. Write scientific manuscripts in full paragraphs (never bullet points). Use two-stage process with (1) section outlines with key points using research-lookup then (2) convert to flowing prose. IMRAD structure, citations (APA/AMA/Vancouver), figures/tables, reporting guidelines (CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA), for research papers and journal submissions.

58k tokens
Scientific Writing
by ComeOnOliver
×1

Core skill for the deep research and writing tool. Write scientific manuscripts in full paragraphs (never bullet points). Use two-stage process with (1) section outlines with key points using research-lookup then (2) convert to flowing prose. IMRAD structure, citations (APA/AMA/Vancouver), figures/tables, reporting guidelines (CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA), for research papers and journal submissions.

63k tokens
Scientific Writing
by ComeOnOliver
×1

Core skill for the deep research and writing tool. Write scientific manuscripts in full paragraphs (never bullet points). Use two-stage process: (1) create section outlines with key points using research-lookup, (2) convert to flowing prose. IMRAD structure, citations (APA/AMA/Vancouver), figures/tables, reporting guidelines (CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA), for research papers and journal submissions.

42k tokens
Paper Writing
by wanshuiyin

Workflow 3: Full paper writing pipeline. Orchestrates paper-plan \u2192 paper-figure \u2192 paper-write \u2192 paper-compile \u2192 auto-paper-improvement-loop to go from a narrative report to a polished, submission-ready PDF. Use when user says \\\"\u5199\u8bba\u6587\u5168\u6d41\u7a0b\\\", \\\"write paper pipeline\\\", \\\"\u4ece\u62a5\u544a\u5230PDF\\\", \\\"paper writing\\\", or wants the complete paper generation workflow.

3k tokens
Paper Writing
by wanshuiyin

Workflow 3: Full paper writing pipeline that goes from a narrative report to a polished, submission-ready PDF. Use when user says \"写论文全流程\", \"write paper pipeline\", \"从报告到PDF\", \"paper writing\", or wants the complete paper generation workflow.

9k tokens
Writing Systems Papers
by wanshuiyin

Paragraph-level structural blueprint for 10-12 page systems papers targeting OSDI, SOSP, ASPLOS, NSDI, and EuroSys. Provides page allocation, paragraph templates, and writing patterns. Use when user says \"写系统论文\", \"systems paper structure\", \"OSDI paper\", \"SOSP paper\", or wants fine-grained structural guidance for a systems conference submission.

2k tokens

How to use it

Copy the folder

Take lawve-ai/client-explanation-translator-larissa-meredith-flister from the repository into ~/.claude/skills for personal use, or into .claude/skills inside a project.

Check the name does not clash

The agent identifies a skill by the name field in its header. Two skills with the same name cannot sit side by side — one of them will be ignored.