Import Tabular Review Lawvable

Import: Tabular Review (Lawvable)

What it does

This import adapter migrates a Lawvable tabular-review skill into the mini-claude-for-legal standard format. Lawvable's tabular-review output format is a structured table-based presentation of legal review findings: each clause or provision is a row, with columns for issue description, risk level, page/section reference, and recommended action. This format is highly popular with in-house legal teams and deal teams because it enables rapid prioritisation without reading a narrative memo.

The adapter maps this output format into the mini-claude-for-legal skill model so that any Claude-powered legal review can produce Lawvable-compatible tabular output.

Import config

Dry-run preview

IMPORT PREVIEW — tabular-review-lawvable
Source shape    : Lawvable tabular review config
Review type     : contract_review
Columns         : 6 (section, clause summary, issue, risk, recommendation, action owner)
Risk levels     : HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / OK
Action column   : enabled
Summary row     : enabled
Comparison mode : disabled (single document)
Output          : markdown_table

Standard 6-column table format

| Section | Clause Summary | Issue | Risk | Recommendation | Action Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clause 1 | [brief summary] | [issue description] | HIGH | [specific fix] | Legal team |
| Clause 2 | [brief summary] | No issue | OK | — | — |
...
| **SUMMARY** | | [count] issues | [overall risk] | [top priority action] | |

Column definitions

Comparison mode (side-by-side)

When comparison_mode: true, the table adds two additional columns for comparing two versions of the same document (e.g. sent draft vs returned redline):

| Section | Issue | Risk (v1) | Version 1 | Risk (v2) | Version 2 | Change Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clause 3 | Liability cap | HIGH | $1M cap | MEDIUM | $5M cap | Cap increased — acceptable |

Use cases:

• Comparing own draft vs counterparty redline
• Comparing NDA received vs firm standard
• Comparing regulatory submission v1 vs regulator's marked-up return

MENA output considerations

• Arabic text in table cells: ensure markdown table renderer supports Arabic RTL in cells; add a note if the document is Arabic-primary.
• Bilingual clauses: if a contract has Arabic and English columns, add a "Prevailing language" column.
• Shariah compliance row: for KSA/UAE financial contracts, add a dedicated "Shariah compliance" row in the table.
• Government contracts: UAE and KSA government contracts may have non-negotiable clauses; mark these as OK (non-negotiable) rather than LOW to avoid wasted review effort.

Quality rules for tabular output

• Every HIGH-risk row must have a specific, concrete Recommendation — never "review and revise"
• Issue column must be factual and specific — never "this clause is unfavourable"
• No more than 20 rows without a section break; add headers for major contract parts (Preamble, Commercial Terms, Liability, Governing Law, etc.)
• Summary row must aggregate: total issues, distribution by risk level, top-3 priority actions

Failure modes

Related skills

• [[import-contract-review-anthropic]]
• [[import-legal-risk-assessment-anthropic]]
• [[import-nda-triage-anthropic]]
• [[import-skill-optimizer-lawvable]]
• [[review-contract-generic]]