# Extract Procedural Requirements From Institutional Rules > Ensures a procedural compliance checklist computes each deadline from its trigger event, identifies overlapping deadlines, flags forfeiture and waiver risks, and addresses emergency-order enforceability at the seat. - Skill: `finchipaiorg/extract-procedural-requirements-from-institutional-rules` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add finchipaiorg/extract-procedural-requirements-from-institutional-rules` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/finchipaiorg/extract-procedural-requirements-from-institutional-rules/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: FinchipAIOrg (https://skillmd.com/u/finchipaiorg) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/finchipaiorg/extract-procedural-requirements-from-institutional-rules --- # Skill: Arbitration Procedural Compliance Checklist ## 1. Subject-matter triage - Identify the governing arbitration regime first: institutional rules, any party-agreed procedural order, the arbitration agreement, and the seat’s arbitration statute. - If multiple rule sets or amendments appear in the source record, enumerate them before analysis and treat later-in-time instruments as potentially modifying earlier default timelines. - Separate respondent obligations from claimant obligations and from tribunal or institution actions; do not merge them into one generic timetable. - If the record includes emergency relief, counterclaims, cost advances, or nomination steps, treat each as a distinct procedural lane with its own trigger and consequence. ## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting - Lists procedural requirements without computing the deadline from the triggering event, leaving the client without actionable dates. - Treats deadlines as standalone items without spotting when several fall in the same short window and require parallel management. - Fails to flag missed arbitrator-nomination or similar selection deadlines as a forfeiture risk that can shift control of the appointment process. - Omits waiver or forfeiture consequences tied to not raising counterclaims or objections at the correct stage. - Ignores whether emergency-order relief is directly enforceable at the seat under the arbitration statute or whether court enforcement steps are still needed. - Overlooks payment deadlines for advances on costs and the sanctions tied to nonpayment. - States legal conclusions without naming the rule, article, or statutory provision that supports them. - Produces a checklist of issues without giving each item an operational severity level and a concrete next step. ## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply - Deadline computation: procedural deadlines run from a defined trigger event and must be calculated by reference to the applicable counting method in the governing rules, including whether the period is calendar days, business days, or another unit. - Trigger specificity: each entry should identify the exact event that starts time running, such as service, receipt, appointment, constitution of the tribunal, or notice by the institution. - Appointment and nomination rules: institutional rules commonly set a nomination period; missing it may authorize the institution or tribunal to appoint without the party’s input under the controlling rules. - Pleading and waiver rules: counterclaims, set-offs, jurisdictional objections, and document-production objections may be waived if not raised in the prescribed submission or within an allowed extension. - Cost-shifting and advances: institutional provisions may require deposits, advances, or equal shares of anticipated costs, with suspension or procedural consequences for nonpayment. - Emergency relief: the effect and enforceability of emergency decisions depend on the institutional framework and the seat’s arbitration law, including any court-assistance mechanism for recognition or interim relief. - Confidentiality and preservation: institutional confidentiality obligations do not eliminate a party’s duty to preserve potentially relevant materials when a litigation hold is required. - Controlling authority should be cited by name and section, article, rule number, or statutory provision wherever a proposition depends on a specific source. ## 4. Analytical scaffolds - Build a line-by-line compliance table for every respondent-facing obligation found in the materials. - For each obligation, capture: governing authority, trigger event, counting method, computed deadline, responsible actor, and consequence if missed. - Where the source record provides dates, compute deadlines directly from those dates; where a date is not supplied, state the missing input needed to finalize the deadline. - For each submission deadline, note whether extensions are available and whether the request for extension must be made before expiry. - For nomination, response, objection, counterclaim, and payment steps, state the default rule first and then any exception or extension. - For emergency relief, identify the date of appointment or referral, the response deadline, the decision deadline, and the seat-law enforcement question. - For counterclaims, test whether they must be included in the answer, a reply, or a separately permitted later filing, and flag any waiver risk if omitted. - For cost advances, identify the payment recipient, amount basis if disclosed, payment timing, and sanction for default. - Where a deadline depends on service method, verify whether the governing rules deem email, courier, or portal filing to count as service or receipt. - Apply a severity label to each item using a uniform ordinal scale such as Critical / High / Medium / Low, and use the same scale throughout. - When a single factual record creates multiple deadlines or parties, enumerate them first and then analyze each one separately; do not collapse distinct obligations into one generic row. - Identify all deadlines that cluster tightly enough to require parallel management, and mark them as simultaneous-action items. - For every legal proposition, pair the conclusion with the controlling rule, article, or statute that authorizes it. ## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships - Map the chronology from the first procedural trigger through the last deadline so the respondent can see what must happen before what. - Distinguish immediate, near-term, and later-stage obligations; a later right may depend on preserving an earlier objection or nomination step. - Flag dependencies where one filing affects another, such as an answer deadline affecting counterclaims or a tribunal constitution affecting emergency relief timing. - Identify any deadline that, if missed, permanently changes procedural rights rather than merely causing delay. - Treat overlapping deadlines as a management problem requiring simultaneous drafting, internal review, and approval. ## 6. Output structure conventions - Produce a procedural compliance checklist in a practical table or numbered checklist format suitable for transfer into a word-processing document. - Begin with a short key defining the severity scale used in the checklist. - For each entry include: severity, governing authority, obligation, trigger, computed deadline or required timing, responsible party, and consequence/risk if missed. - Include a separate section for overlapping or clustered deadlines and a separate section for critical procedural risks. - Include a separate section for emergency relief enforceability if the source materials raise that issue. - End with a concise Recommended Actions section that gives the respondent’s next steps, each in imperative form, tied to a responsible role and timing anchor drawn from the record. - Keep the checklist operational, not narrative: every entry should be actionable without rereading the source documents.