# Regulatory Cold-Start Interview > Use when a regulatory practice group is adopting AgentCounsel and needs to configure its practice profile by answering a structured interview covering jurisdictions, client context, escalation thresholds, output preferences, source documents, standard positions, review requirements, and prohibited assumptions. - Skill: `zgbrenner/regulatory-cold-start-interview` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add zgbrenner/regulatory-cold-start-interview` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/zgbrenner/regulatory-cold-start-interview/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: zgbrenner (https://skillmd.com/u/zgbrenner) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/zgbrenner/regulatory-cold-start-interview --- # Regulatory Cold-Start Interview ## Purpose Conduct a structured, staged interview with a regulatory practice group — led by a supervising attorney or authorized designee — to gather the information required to populate `practice-profiles/regulatory.md`. The skill walks through all eight profile fields in sequence, records every answer, and assembles a filled draft of the profile for the practice group's review and approval. It produces draft legal work product for attorney review — not legal advice and not a final configuration. ## Use When - A team is adopting AgentCounsel and needs to configure `practice-profiles/regulatory.md` for the first time. - A regulatory practice group is being onboarded to the library and no current profile exists. - The library is being stood up for the first time and the regulatory area is included in scope. - A practice group wishes to revisit or rebuild its profile from scratch rather than make incremental updates. ## Required Inputs - A knowledgeable person from the regulatory practice group — a supervising attorney or an authorized designee — who can answer questions about the group's jurisdiction, positions, escalation rules, and review requirements. - Any existing playbooks, templates, source-of-truth documents, or standard-form documents the group already uses, so they can be referenced or cited in the profile. ## Do Not Use When - The group is actively working a live regulatory matter. This skill configures the library; it does not support an open matter. - A `practice-profiles/regulatory.md` already exists and is current. In that case this is a refresh, not a cold start — though the skill may still be used to rebuild the profile deliberately. - No authorized person is available to answer. Do not complete the interview with guessed or inferred answers; record all gaps as `[CONFIRM: ...]` placeholders. - The purpose is to handle a specific regulatory matter (use the appropriate matter-level skill for that task). ## Legal Safety Rules - Produce draft legal work product for attorney review. This is not legal advice. - Never guess or infer an answer to any interview question. If the interviewee cannot answer a question, record `[CONFIRM: answer required from practice group]` and move on. - The filled profile is a draft. It must be reviewed and explicitly approved by the supervising attorney or practice group before it governs any AgentCounsel work product. - Do not invent standard positions, clause preferences, escalation thresholds, or review rules. Record only what the interviewee provides. - Do not include client-specific facts, client names, matter identifiers, or privileged details in the profile. The profile is a reusable group-level configuration, not a matter record. - Do not state or imply that any threshold, position, or rule in the profile satisfies a legal requirement under any jurisdiction. Jurisdiction-specific legal obligations are for the attorney to verify. - Flag every item the interviewee defers or leaves open with a visible `[CONFIRM: ...]` placeholder so the reviewer can see exactly what is unresolved. ## Workflow **Stage 1 — Jurisdictions** Ask the interviewee: - In which jurisdictions and before which agencies does the group regularly practice — US federal agencies (which ones), US state agencies, foreign regulators, multi-jurisdictional matters? - What sectors does the group regularly engage with — energy, telecom, healthcare, financial services, transportation, environment, consumer protection? - Are there sectors or agencies the group treats as out of scope, requiring specialist outside counsel? - Does the group maintain agency-specific or sector-specific reference materials, and where are they stored? - Does the group track foreign regulatory developments that affect US clients (e.g., EU regulatory parallels)? Record answers. Mark any unanswered item `[CONFIRM: jurisdiction not yet specified]`. **Stage 2 — Client and Team Context** Ask the interviewee: - Does the group represent primarily regulated entities, complainants, intervenors, or a mix? - What types of regulatory matters does the group handle most frequently — advisory, rulemaking participation, license / permit, enforcement defense, agency engagement? - How is the team structured — sector specialists, generalist regulatory counsel, paralegals, consultant relationships? - How does the group coordinate with sector technical experts, government-affairs counsel, lobbyists, and trade associations? - Are there client categories — public-utility holding companies, hospitals, banks, broker-dealers — that require special handling? Record answers. Mark any unanswered item `[CONFIRM: client/team context not yet specified]`. **Stage 3 — Escalation Thresholds** Ask the interviewee: - Which matters automatically require escalation — regulatory inquiry, subpoena / CID, sanctions risk, license / permit revocation, rulemaking participation above threshold? - Are there sector-specific scenarios — bank examiner inquiry, FDA warning letter, FTC investigative demand — that require immediate review? - When does an agency engagement (informal meeting, settlement discussion, consent decree negotiation) require partner-level involvement? - Which rulemaking matters (notice-and-comment, hearing participation, ex parte) require attorney review regardless of size? - Who is the designated escalation contact for regulatory matters, and what is the expected turnaround? Record answers. Mark any unanswered item `[CONFIRM: escalation threshold not yet specified]`. **Stage 4 — Preferred Output Style** Ask the interviewee: - Should regulatory work product default to memo format, agency-letter format, comment-letter format, or compliance-checklist format? - What level of detail does the practice group expect — executive summary, full reasoning with agency-precedent citations, both layered? - Are there house style rules for citation format (agency decisions, no-action letters, guidance documents), risk ratings, or open-items lists? - Does the group produce rulemaking-comment letters or compliance-program review memos in standard formats? - Are there particular deliverable types — agency responses, comment letters, enforcement-defense memos — for which the group has mandatory format requirements? Record answers. Mark any unanswered item `[CONFIRM: output style preference not yet specified]`. **Stage 5 — Source-of-Truth Documents** Ask the interviewee: - What is the group's authoritative library of agency-precedent references, and where is it stored? - Is there a regulatory-tracking system (rulemaking docket, enforcement actions, agency-guidance changes), and how is it kept current? - What document governs the group's comment-letter framework? - Are there compliance-program-review templates or audit-checklist templates the group treats as authoritative? - Does the group maintain agency-specific protocols for informal contacts, voluntary disclosures, and settlement engagement? Record answers and document names. Mark any unanswered item `[CONFIRM: source document not yet identified]`. **Stage 6 — Standard Positions and Playbooks** Ask the interviewee: - What is the group's default regulatory engagement posture — proactive engagement, reactive engagement, situational? - What is the group's default rulemaking-participation threshold — what types of rulemakings warrant a comment letter, and what types warrant a presence at hearings? - What is the group's default approach to voluntary disclosures — when warranted, what scope? - What is the group's default comment-letter framework — issue spotting, position taking, both? - What is the group's default compliance-program-review posture for new regulatory regimes? Record answers. Mark any unanswered item `[CONFIRM: standard position not yet specified]`. **Stage 7 — Attorney Review Requirements** Ask the interviewee: - At what stage does attorney review of regulatory work product become mandatory — initial intake, draft comment letter, draft agency response, draft compliance-program update? - Are there work-product types for which attorney review is always required regardless of size — any agency filing, any rulemaking comment, any voluntary disclosure, any consent-decree negotiation? - What is the designated reviewer's role — handling attorney, supervising sector partner, regulatory specialist? - What is the expected turnaround for regulatory review, and how are urgent reviews (agency-deadline-driven, enforcement matters) handled? - Is there a formal sign-off step before any agency submission or rulemaking comment is filed? Record answers. Mark any unanswered item `[CONFIRM: review requirement not yet specified]`. **Stage 8 — Prohibited Assumptions** Ask the interviewee: - Are there facts agents must never assume without explicit confirmation — that a regulation is current, that an interpretation is binding, that an exemption applies, that an enforcement action is unlikely, that an agency precedent is on point? - Are there regulatory risks — investigation, enforcement, license-revocation, criminal referral — where an agent must stop and escalate rather than reason through independently? - Are there matter types where agents must never proceed beyond intake without direct attorney involvement — agency investigations, consent-decree matters, enforcement defense? - Are there prior incidents — adverse enforcement actions, consent decrees, regulatory findings — that should be encoded as explicit prohibitions for agents working on regulatory matters? Record answers. Mark any unanswered item `[CONFIRM: prohibited assumption not yet specified]`. **Stage 9 — Assemble the Draft Profile** Compile all answers into a filled draft of `practice-profiles/regulatory.md`, populating each of the eight profile sections. For every item that was not answered, insert a visible `[CONFIRM: ...]` placeholder with enough context for the reviewer to understand what needs to be supplied. Append a list of all open placeholders so the reviewing attorney can see at a glance what remains unresolved. ## Output Format Deliver: 1. **Filled draft of `practice-profiles/regulatory.md`** — all eight sections populated with answers from the interview. Every unanswered item is a visible `[CONFIRM: ...]` placeholder. 2. **Open-items list** — an explicit enumeration of every placeholder inserted, with the stage and question it corresponds to, so the reviewing attorney can resolve them efficiently. Label the entire output: **Draft legal work product for attorney review. Not legal advice. This profile draft must be reviewed and approved by the supervising attorney or practice group before it is relied upon.** ## Attorney Verification Checklist - [ ] All eight profile sections have been reviewed by a supervising attorney or authorized practice-group representative. - [ ] Agency / jurisdiction coverage and sector specialization are accurately recorded. - [ ] Regulatory-tracking system reference is current and maintenance owner is named. - [ ] Voluntary-disclosure framework and rulemaking-participation thresholds reflect the group's current considered posture. - [ ] Agency deadlines (comment periods, response windows, hearing dates) are marked `[deadline verification required]` in any related deliverable. - [ ] Current-law verification is required for any analysis that turns on a regulation, agency interpretation, or guidance document `[Verify current law]`. - [ ] No client-specific facts, matter identifiers, or privileged details appear in the profile. - [ ] All `[CONFIRM: ...]` placeholders have been resolved or explicitly accepted as pending. - [ ] The approved profile has been saved to `practice-profiles/regulatory.md` and its effective date recorded. - [ ] A process for periodic profile review and update has been identified.