Sow Draft

SoW Draft

Part of the discovery-phase skill pack · deliverables group · reads discovery-context.md (run profile-builder first if missing).

Statement of Work draft for the legal team to harden. The discovery team's job is to capture commercial reality precisely; legal then translates to enforceable terms.

This skill produces a draft, not a contract. Always route through agency legal + client legal before signing. The discovery team should not be the last line of defense on contract terms.

Step 1 — Read context + prerequisites

Read discovery-context.md (sections 3. Engagement → Budget context — drives payment structure; 6. Constraints — regulatory clauses), scope-doc.md (deliverables + exclusions), and estimation.md (pricing structure). Recommended: proposal.md (consistency with what's already shared with client) and risk-assumption-map.md (informs warranty language).

If discovery-context.md is missing, ask the BA inline: "(a) budget structure (fixed-fee / T&M / milestone-based); (b) regulatory constraints (GDPR / HIPAA / SOC2 / none)?" — tag the output [ASSUMED COMMERCIAL] and DRAFT-ONLY. If scope-doc.md or estimation.md is missing, ask for stand-in bullets, or proceed with [TBD] placeholders and a non-removable DRAFT-ONLY banner — NOT for legal review until placeholders resolved. Never block; recommend profile-builder / feature-scoping / estimation for high-stakes work.

Step 2 — Fill the template

Fill ./template.md. It owns the structure (parties, deliverables table, out-of-scope, timeline + milestones, pricing model, payment terms, change-requests, acceptance + revisions, warranties, IP + confidentiality, termination, client dependencies, assumptions, outsourcing-specific clauses, signatures). This skill's job is the content; the template is the shape.

Fields that hide disputes — be precise here:

• Acceptance criteria (per deliverable). "User can complete X workflow without errors" not "system works". Vague = future dispute.
• Out of scope. Verbatim from scope-doc.md "out" + "explicitly deferred". Critical — prevents post-signature scope creep.
• Pricing model. Pick from discovery-context.md budget context: fixed-fee (tight scope, repeat work) / T&M with cap (moderate uncertainty) / pure T&M (staff aug, exploratory) / phased (long engagement with gates). Spell out: rates per discipline if T&M, fixed numbers if fixed-fee, milestone amounts if phased.
• Change-request process. Without it, every "small addition" mid-build becomes an argument. Specify: who can request, how submitted, estimation turnaround (3-5 business days typical), sign-off authority, how changes affect price + timeline.
• Warranties. What the agency warrants (e.g., 30-60 day bug-fix window post-delivery) AND what's NOT warranted (third-party issues, scope changes, environment). Bound from risk-assumption-map.md [agency] rows.
• Client dependencies. From scope-doc.md outsourcing extras + risk-map [client] rows. State explicitly that delays may impact timeline + cost. Don't bury — top-section visible.
• Assumptions. Verbatim from estimation.md "Assumptions that invalidate the estimate". If any becomes false, SoW is voidable / must be amended.

Step 3 — Outsourcing-specific clauses (often missed)

Add to template's section 14 if relevant:

• Time-zone overlap requirement — if context shows distributed teams
• Subcontractor disclosure — does the agency use subs? Client right to approve?
• Data handling — GDPR / HIPAA / SOC2 specifics if section 6 flagged any
• Communication cadence SLA — response times, meeting cadence
• Tooling rights — who provides Linear/Jira/Slack/Figma seats; ownership of artifacts

Step 4 — Output

./discovery/sow-draft.md per ./template.md. Mark prominently at top:

DRAFT — REQUIRES AGENCY LEGAL + CLIENT LEGAL REVIEW BEFORE EXECUTION.

Append to _log.md: [sow-draft | YYYY-MM-DD] pricing: <model>; deliverables: <count>; acceptance_defined: <Y/N>; legal_review: pending.

Anti-patterns

• Ambiguous acceptance criteria. "Acceptance: when client says ok" = future dispute. Be precise.
• No change-request process. Mid-build scope additions become free, then resented, then disputed.
• Pricing structure mismatch. Fixed-fee on uncertain scope = either agency loses money or client gets hidden change requests.
• Dependencies on client buried. They must be top-section visible.
• Skipping legal review. This skill produces a draft; the BA must route to legal.