# Legal And Quality Screen > Quality Rubric and Legal Wording Guardrails - Skill: `dgusoff/legal-and-quality-screen` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add dgusoff/legal-and-quality-screen` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/dgusoff/legal-and-quality-screen/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: dgusoff (https://skillmd.com/u/dgusoff) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/dgusoff/legal-and-quality-screen --- # Quality Rubric and Legal Wording Guardrails **Source: 2QP-M01-00002, Rev. 002, effective 23-MAR-2026**, Attachment B (Basic LL Requirements) and Attachment C (Legal Guidance for Lessons Learned). Run both screens before returning any draft. The controlled procedure on myBechtel is authoritative. Note the procedure's own framing: lessons are **dispositioned subjectively based on the Approver's knowledge and discretion as a Subject Matter Expert**. This rubric predicts what an Approver will look for; it never substitutes for that judgment, and the skill must not present a "pass" as a prediction of approval. ## Quality rubric — Attachment B, seven characteristics Score each item pass / weak. Any weak item must be named with a reason and the question that would resolve it. | # | Characteristic | Pass standard | If weak, ask | |---|---|---|---| | 1 | Benefit beyond oneself | Knowledge or understanding gained by experience with potential benefit to others, or significant impact to an organization — not just oneself or one project. | What other scopes, disciplines, or projects would encounter this? | | 2 | Experience-based | Results from a problem encountered and its subsequent resolution, or a recommendation on how to better perform a task. | What specifically happened, and when? | | 3 | Recognized lesson type | Successful practices; things to avoid and other cautions; improvements based on current experience; technological information; or local/regional regulatory knowledge. | Which of these is this? If none, is it a lesson at all? | | 4 | Specific, with preventive action | Relates to a specific situation, practice, or findings summary from an issue or incident, and conveys the critical knowledge. Successful preventive actions taken or suggested are described where appropriate. | What artifact, system, quantity, or sequence was involved, and what prevents recurrence? | | 5 | Not a complaint | Not so general as to be perceived as complaining about a problem, rather than presenting a defined problem with a definite corrective action or disposition. | What are the facts, and what was actually done about it? | | 6 | Drives different behavior | The lesson should drive us to do something different from what we would normally do. | What would someone do differently after reading this? If nothing, it is not yet a lesson. | | 7 | New knowledge | Represents "new knowledge" to the enterprise. | What is not already covered by existing procedure, design guide, or common practice? | **Verdicts** - **Pass** — all seven characteristics hold; the draft is ready for concurrence and submission. Never state or imply that it will be approved; that is the Approver's call. - **Needs revision** — one or more weak characteristics, but a real lesson underneath. Return the draft with the specific questions attached. - **Not a valid lesson** — no experience, no corrective action, no behavior change, or a pure complaint. Say plainly that it is not ready to submit, explain which characteristics fail, and supply the questions that would make it valid. Never label an action item, a task, or an opinion as a lesson learned. Additional resources on the process live on the SharePoint Lessons Learned Portal, including the "ABCs for Writing a Lesson Learned" guidance the procedure directs Initiators to review. ## Legal guidance — Attachment C The procedure's premise: lessons which may be misinterpreted or be embarrassing to clients or others **may be required to be disclosed as part of discovery in legal proceedings**, and improperly prepared lessons could create legal liability for Bechtel. Clients, vendors, and others may have discovery rights over lessons learned content. ### The screening order matters Section 5.2 requires the Initiator to **review and consider Legal implications prior to creating the lesson content**, and Attachment C directs consulting the Legal Department **before preparing drafts** where litigation or quasi-legal proceedings are expected or probable. So: → **Screen the source material for legal exposure BEFORE drafting, not only after.** If the input describes litigation, alternative dispute resolution, a claim, or a quasi-legal proceeding — expected or probable — say so first, advise consulting the Legal Department before the lesson is drafted or entered, and offer a neutral factual outline rather than a full draft. Timing is part of the guidance: committing comments to written form may make them available to parties whose interests oppose Bechtel's. ### The four evaluation points 1. **Admission against interest.** Are we admitting negligence that might be commercially or technically damaging to a client, a supplier, or Bechtel? **State lessons as affirmatively as possible**, and do not include details about possible oversights where they are not necessary to communicate the information. 2. **Defamation.** Avoid derogatory or libelous comments about clients, suppliers, or individuals. 3. **Finger pointing.** Avoid accusing remarks against individuals regarding blame or involvement in any questionable matter. 4. **Subject to legal proceedings.** Where litigation or quasi-legal proceedings are expected or probable, consultation with Legal is **required before entry of the lesson into the system**. ### Facts over opinions Preference is given to facts over opinions when drafting or screening. - **Just the facts.** Acquire an accurate understanding of the facts before communicating them. Complete, accurate, objective factual statements are the goal. Avoid expressing an opinion when the facts speak for themselves. Avoid emotionalism, anger, or personal attacks on anyone — fellow employees, vendors, or customers. **Attacking the competence of other parties is extremely serious and is not tolerated.** - **Limits on necessary opinion.** Professional opinion is sometimes necessary and desirable, but it must be (a) limited to stated specific facts or carry appropriate qualifications — sweeping terms such as "always" or "never" are rarely justified; (b) limited to the technical issue at hand; and (c) offered by a source technically qualified to give it. **The skill is not a technically qualified source** — so it must attribute any technical judgment to the user's material rather than asserting its own. ### Practical rewrites - Remove individual names. Remove vendor and client names wherever the lesson survives without them — describe the role or the artifact instead ("the equipment vendor data was not final"). - Replace characterization with observation: not "the vendor dragged their feet", but "vendor data was received after the drawing issue date." - Strip speculation about intent or competence entirely; it fails points 2, 3, and the opinion limits at once. ## Caution levels to report | Level | Meaning | |---|---| | No apparent sensitivity | Nothing matched the Attachment C evaluation points. | | Needs user review | Wording was neutralized, or client/vendor/performance content is referenced. A person should read it before submission. | | Consult Legal before drafting or entry | Litigation, alternative dispute resolution, claims, quasi-legal proceedings, or proprietary IP appear. Per Attachment C, consultation with the Legal Department is required before the lesson is entered — and the procedure directs consulting Legal before drafts are prepared. State this as the procedure's requirement, never as the skill's determination. | Always list what was neutralized, so the user can confirm the lesson survived the rewrite intact. Never predict whether Legal will permit publication — the Legal Reviewer may suggest changes or prohibit publication entirely.