HomeBrowseUpload
← Back to registry
// Skill profile

Claude

name: Claude

by btcagentic · published 2026-03-22

自动化任务加密货币
Total installs
0
Stars
★ 0
Last updated
2026-03
// Install command
$ claw add gh:btcagentic/btcagentic-claude
View on GitHub
// Full documentation

---

name: Claude

description: >

Optimize long-context reasoning for commercial, legal, and high-stakes documents.

Built for users who need stronger logic, cleaner structure, and deeper analysis

across contracts, memos, negotiations, and complex written materials.

version: 1.0.0

---

# Claude

> **Turn long, messy, high-stakes documents into sharper reasoning and cleaner decisions.**

Claude is a long-context reasoning optimizer for commercial and legal document workflows.

Use this skill when you need to:

  • analyze long contracts, memos, proposals, or negotiations
  • improve reasoning quality across dense written material
  • surface contradictions, weak logic, or missing assumptions
  • compress large documents into decision-ready summaries
  • strengthen document structure before review or approval
  • compare multiple versions of a long-form document
  • This skill does NOT:

  • replace licensed legal advice
  • guarantee correctness in regulated or high-risk matters
  • sign off on legal, tax, or compliance decisions
  • act as a substitute for professional counsel
  • ---

    What This Skill Does

    Claude helps:

  • extract the core logic from long documents
  • identify missing assumptions and weak reasoning
  • clarify structure, argument flow, and decision relevance
  • detect inconsistencies, ambiguity, and hidden risk
  • improve summaries without losing critical nuance
  • rewrite dense content into cleaner, more usable formats
  • ---

    Best Use Cases

  • contract review preparation
  • commercial memo analysis
  • proposal and redline review
  • policy comparison
  • negotiation brief preparation
  • board or executive memo compression
  • legal-adjacent document structuring
  • ---

    What to Provide

    Useful input includes:

  • the full document or excerpt
  • the purpose of the review
  • the decision being supported
  • known risks or pressure points
  • the audience for the final output
  • whether you want diagnosis, summary, rewrite, or comparison
  • ---

    Standard Output Format

    DOCUMENT ASSESSMENT

    ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

    Purpose: [What this document is trying to do]

    Audience: [Who the output is for]

    Decision relevance: [Why this matters]

    CORE LOGIC

    ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

  • [Main claim / obligation / commercial point]
  • [Supporting logic]
  • [Critical assumption]
  • RISKS / WEAK POINTS

    ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

    ⚠️ [Ambiguity]

    ⚠️ [Contradiction]

    ⚠️ [Missing assumption]

    ⚠️ [Commercial or legal risk signal]

    STRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS

    ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

    1. [How to make reasoning clearer]

    2. [How to reduce ambiguity]

    3. [How to improve decision usefulness]

    RECOMMENDED NEXT STEP

    ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

  • [Review further / rewrite / compare versions / escalate to counsel / prepare summary]
  • ---

    Reasoning Principles

  • preserve critical nuance
  • do not compress away risk
  • separate fact, inference, and recommendation
  • identify what is explicit vs implied
  • highlight missing assumptions before proposing conclusions
  • prefer clarity over flourish
  • never invent legal or commercial certainty
  • ---

    Execution Protocol (for AI agents)

    When user provides a long document, follow this sequence:

    Step 1: Parse context

    Extract:

  • document type
  • intended audience
  • decision being supported
  • major obligations, claims, or asks
  • commercial or legal sensitivity
  • Step 2: Identify logic structure

    Map:

  • what the document is saying
  • why it matters
  • what assumptions it depends on
  • what could fail under scrutiny
  • Step 3: Detect weaknesses

    Check for:

  • ambiguity
  • contradiction
  • undefined terms
  • missing scope boundaries
  • missing decision logic
  • hidden risk transfer
  • structural confusion
  • Step 4: Improve usefulness

    Depending on request:

  • summarize
  • rewrite
  • compare
  • diagnose
  • convert into brief / memo / checklist
  • Step 5: Guardrails

    If legal or commercial certainty cannot be established from the text:

  • say so clearly
  • mark uncertainty
  • do not fabricate confidence
  • ---

    Activation Rules (for AI agents)

    Use this skill when the user asks about:

  • long documents
  • contract-like text
  • legal-adjacent review
  • memo analysis
  • commercial document reasoning
  • dense text summarization with nuance
  • comparing two long versions of a document
  • Do NOT use this skill when:

  • user only needs a casual short rewrite
  • user needs creative writing instead of reasoning
  • user needs formal legal advice or sign-off
  • user asks for certainty where the text does not support it
  • If context is ambiguous

    Ask:

    "Do you want deep reasoning and document analysis, or just a simple rewrite?"

    ---

    Works Well With

  • `@ethagent/review` for narrower document review workflows
  • `@ethagent/draft` for rewriting after diagnosis
  • `@dpetcr/proposal` for commercial proposal refinement
  • ---

    Boundaries

    This skill supports reasoning, structuring, and analysis of long commercial and legal-adjacent documents.

    It does not replace:

  • licensed legal advice
  • contract execution authority
  • procurement approval
  • tax or compliance judgment
  • Use outputs as analytical support, not formal sign-off.

    // Comments
    Sign in with GitHub to leave a comment.
    // Related skills

    More tools from the same signal band