QA

Quality Assurance Review

When to Use

Use this skill when:

• The user says /qa
• A matter is transitioning from WORKING to REVIEW
• Counsel requests a fresh QA pass after a return
• The agent has finished editing a document and needs verification

Process

1. Inventory the Workspace

Call list_documents to see all files. Identify:

• The primary deliverable (the main contract/document being worked on)
• The intake summary (intake_*.md) for client instructions
• Any playbook files (Playbook/*.md, anylegal.md)
• Any research notes or memos created during the work
• The original uploaded document (if different from the deliverable)

2. Template Compliance Check

Read the deliverable with read_document. Check:

• Document structure matches the expected template format
• Clause numbering is sequential and correct
• Cross-references (to other clauses, schedules, annexes) are accurate
• Defined terms are used consistently (capitalization, spelling)
• No placeholder text remains (e.g., "[INSERT]", "TBD", "XXX")
• Standard boilerplate clauses are present (severability, governing law, etc.)

3. Factual Accuracy Check

Verify legal facts in the document:

• Jurisdiction references are correct for the matter type
• Legal citations (statutes, regulations, case law) are valid — use web_search to spot-check
• Dates, deadlines, and time periods are internally consistent
• Party names and entity types are correct throughout
• Currency and monetary amounts are consistent

4. Completeness Check

Read the intake summary and compare against the deliverable:

• All client instructions from intake have been addressed
• All documents mentioned in intake have been reviewed/incorporated
• No sections are left unfinished or contain TODO markers
• If multi-jurisdictional, all specified jurisdictions are covered

5. Track Changes Review

Use run_code (default Python) with lxml to count tracked changes (w:ins, w:del), extract authors, and assess edit scope. Then:

• Every insertion has a clear purpose (improves protection, fixes error, adds required clause)
• Every deletion is justified (removes risk, corrects error, simplifies)
• No unintended formatting-only changes
• Tracked changes are clean (no stacked/overlapping revisions)
• Total edit count is proportionate to the matter scope

6. Research Audit

If research notes or memos exist:

• Web sources cited are accessible and authoritative
• Citations use [[N]](URL) format with working URLs
• Legal positions are supported by the cited sources
• No hallucinated or outdated legal references

Use web_search and web_fetch to spot-check 2-3 key citations.

7. Generate QA Report

Create a qa_<date>.md document with:

# QA Report — [Matter Title]

**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Reviewer:** Agent QA
**Document:** [deliverable filename]

## Summary
[1-2 sentence overall assessment]

## Checklist

### Template Compliance
- [x] Structure matches template
- [x] Numbering correct
...

### Factual Accuracy
- [x] Jurisdictions correct
...

### Completeness
- [x] All client instructions addressed
...

### Track Changes
- [x] All edits justified
...

### Research Audit
- [x] Citations verified
...

## Issues Found
[List any issues, with severity: CRITICAL / WARNING / INFO]

## Verdict
[PASS / PASS WITH WARNINGS / FAIL]

Guidelines

• Be thorough but proportionate — a simple NDA review needs less scrutiny than a cross-border compliance matter
• If you find CRITICAL issues, clearly flag them — these block approval
• WARNING issues should be noted but don't necessarily block approval
• Always generate the QA report even if everything passes — the report is the audit trail
• If the original document is available, use compare to verify the edit scope makes sense
• Do not modify the deliverable during QA — only read and report