MyClaw
InícioCasos de UsoPreçosHabilidadesRecursosEmpresa
InícioCasos de UsoPreçosHabilidades
Entrar
InícioCasos de UsoPreçosHabilidades
RecursosCompararTutorialLearnBlogRecursosComunidade
EmpresaSobreSuporte
Entrar
MyClaw.ai

Seu OpenClaw, já rodando.

Produto

Casos de UsoPreçosComparar

Recursos

BlogHabilidadesSuporteComunidadeCapybara

Legal

TermosPrivacidadeCookieGDPRContato

© 2023 Cubo World Inc. Todos os direitos reservados.

← Voltar para Skills
📑

Legal Risk Scoring

Score and classify legal risks on a severity-times-likelihood matrix, assign GREEN/YELLOW/ORANGE/RED ratings, document findings in structured memos, and determine escalation paths.

por vm0-aiv1.0.0
PDF & Documents
Conectando à VM...
Conectando à VM...
npx clawhub@latest install legal-risk-scoring
57Estrelas
1Instalações atuais
📦
v1.0.0Versão
📅
Apr 17, 2026Atualizado
Ver código-fonte(ClawHub)

Two-Axis Evaluation Grid

Every legal risk is measured across two independent axes:

Impact Magnitude (consequences if the risk becomes reality):

Rating Descriptor Meaning
1 Trivial Minimal disruption; no meaningful financial, operational, or reputational consequence. Absorbed within day-to-day operations.
2 Minor Contained impact; financial exposure under 1% of the relevant contract or transaction value; brief operational hiccup; no public visibility.
3 Substantial Tangible impact; financial exposure in the 1-5% range of relevant value; noticeable operational interference; possibility of limited external attention.
4 Serious Major impact; financial exposure between 5-25% of relevant value; significant operational disruption; probable public scrutiny; potential for regulatory interest.
5 Severe Existential-level impact; financial exposure exceeding 25% of relevant value; core business operations threatened; material reputational harm; regulatory action anticipated; potential personal exposure for directors and officers.

Occurrence Probability (how likely the risk is to materialize):

Rating Descriptor Meaning
1 Negligible Essentially theoretical; no known precedent in comparable situations; would demand extraordinary circumstances.
2 Low Conceivable but not anticipated; sparse precedent; requires specific precipitating events.
3 Moderate Plausible; some analogous situations have materialized; precipitating conditions are foreseeable.
4 Elevated Expected to happen; clear precedent exists; precipitating conditions are commonplace in analogous contexts.
5 Near Certain Virtually guaranteed; strong historical pattern; precipitating conditions are already present or imminent.

Computing the Score

Risk Score = Impact Magnitude x Occurrence Probability

Score Band Category Indicator
1-4 Baseline Risk GREEN
5-9 Intermediate Risk YELLOW
10-15 Elevated Risk ORANGE
16-25 Acute Risk RED

Visual Grid

                     OCCURRENCE PROBABILITY
               Negligible  Low   Moderate  Elevated  Near Certain
                  (1)      (2)     (3)       (4)        (5)
IMPACT
Severe    (5) |   5    |   10   |   15   |   20   |     25     |
Serious   (4) |   4    |    8   |   12   |   16   |     20     |
Substantial(3)|   3    |    6   |    9   |   12   |     15     |
Minor     (2) |   2    |    4   |    6   |    8   |     10     |
Trivial   (1) |   1    |    2   |    3   |    4   |      5     |

GREEN -- Baseline Risk (Score 1-4)

Profile:

  • Low-consequence issues with negligible probability
  • Routine operational risks with well-established controls already in place
  • Familiar risk patterns that the organization regularly manages

Protocol:

  • Accept: Proceed with existing controls in place
  • Log: Enter into the risk register for ongoing visibility
  • Periodic check: Revisit during quarterly or annual review cycles
  • No escalation: The responsible team member manages independently

Typical scenarios:

  • Vendor agreement with a small deviation from preferred terms in a non-material area
  • Standard confidentiality agreement with a reputable counterparty in a familiar jurisdiction
  • Routine administrative compliance task with a clear owner and deadline

YELLOW -- Intermediate Risk (Score 5-9)

Profile:

  • Issues of moderate consequence that could arise under realistic conditions
  • Risks deserving active attention without requiring emergency response
  • Situations where precedent provides a management roadmap

Protocol:

  • Reduce exposure: Deploy targeted controls or negotiate improved terms
  • Active surveillance: Review monthly or upon occurrence of defined trigger events
  • Thorough documentation: Capture the risk, all mitigation steps, and decision rationale in the register
  • Designated owner: A specific individual holds accountability for tracking and mitigation
  • Stakeholder communication: Relevant business contacts are informed of the risk and the mitigation approach
  • Escalation triggers: Define specific conditions that would push this risk to a higher category

Typical scenarios:

  • Agreement with a liability ceiling below the preferred level but within a negotiable range
  • Vendor processing personal data in a territory with uncertain adequacy status
  • Regulatory development that may affect a business line over the medium term
  • IP provision that is broader than optimal but consistent with market practice

ORANGE -- Elevated Risk (Score 10-15)

Profile:

  • Weighty issues with a realistic chance of materializing
  • Risks capable of producing significant financial, operational, or public-facing harm
  • Situations demanding senior-level attention and structured mitigation

Protocol:

  • Senior counsel involvement: Brief the head of legal or designated senior attorney
  • Structured mitigation plan: Build a concrete, time-bound plan to reduce the risk
  • Leadership awareness: Ensure relevant business leaders understand the risk and the recommended path
  • Frequent review: Weekly check-ins or milestone-based reassessment
  • External counsel assessment: Engage outside specialists for domain-specific guidance as warranted
  • Detailed written analysis: Produce a full risk memorandum covering analysis, alternatives, and recommendations
  • Contingency planning: Define the response playbook if the risk materializes

Typical scenarios:

  • Agreement containing uncapped indemnification in a material obligation area
  • Data processing operation that may violate regulatory requirements without restructuring
  • Credible litigation threat from a significant counterparty
  • Intellectual property infringement allegation with a plausible basis
  • Formal regulatory inquiry or audit notification

RED -- Acute Risk (Score 16-25)

Profile:

  • The most consequential issues, with high or near-certain probability of materializing
  • Risks that threaten fundamental business viability, expose officers and directors, or endanger key stakeholders
  • Demands immediate executive engagement and rapid mobilization

Protocol:

  • Immediate executive briefing: Notify General Counsel, C-suite, and Board as the situation warrants
  • Outside counsel retention: Engage specialized external lawyers without delay
  • Dedicated response team: Stand up a cross-functional team with clearly defined roles and authority
  • Insurance notification: Alert carriers where coverage may apply
  • Crisis protocols: Activate crisis management procedures when reputational exposure exists
  • Evidence preservation: Institute a litigation hold if legal proceedings are a possibility
  • Continuous monitoring: Daily or more frequent status reviews until resolved or downgraded
  • Board-level reporting: Include in governance risk reporting as appropriate
  • Regulatory communication: File any mandatory regulatory notifications

Typical scenarios:

  • Pending litigation with substantial financial exposure
  • Personal data breach affecting regulated information
  • Active regulatory enforcement proceeding
  • Material breach of or against the organization under a significant contract
  • Government investigation
  • Infringement claim targeting a core product or revenue-generating service

Risk Assessment Memorandum

Every formal evaluation should follow this structure:

Legal Risk Evaluation

Prepared: [date] Analyst: [name of person conducting the evaluation] Subject: [description of the matter under review] Privilege designation: [Yes/No -- mark as attorney-client privileged where applicable]

1. Risk Statement

[Precise, concise articulation of the legal risk]

2. Factual Background

[Relevant facts, chronology, and business context]

3. Scoring Analysis

Impact Magnitude: [1-5] - [Descriptor]

[Supporting rationale including potential financial exposure, operational consequences, and reputational dimensions]

Occurrence Probability: [1-5] - [Descriptor]

[Supporting rationale including precedent, triggering conditions, and current circumstances]

Composite Score: [Number] - [GREEN/YELLOW/ORANGE/RED]

4. Aggravating Factors

[Elements that amplify the risk]

5. Countervailing Factors

[Elements that dampen the risk or contain exposure]

6. Mitigation Alternatives

Alternative Effectiveness Resource Demand Recommended?
[Option A] [High/Med/Low] [High/Med/Low] [Yes/No]
[Option B] [High/Med/Low] [High/Med/Low] [Yes/No]

7. Recommended Course of Action

[Specific recommendation with supporting rationale]

8. Post-Mitigation Risk Level

[Projected risk category after implementing recommended measures]

9. Ongoing Monitoring Plan

[Frequency and method of review; conditions that would trigger reassessment]

10. Immediate Next Steps

  1. [Task - Responsible party - Due date]
  2. [Task - Responsible party - Due date]

Risk Register Format

For entry into the team's centralized risk tracker:

Field Content
Identifier Unique tracking code
Discovery Date When the risk first came to light
Summary Brief characterization
Domain Contract / Regulatory / Litigation / IP / Data Privacy / Employment / Corporate / Other
Impact Rating 1-5 with descriptor
Probability Rating 1-5 with descriptor
Composite Score Calculated value
Category GREEN / YELLOW / ORANGE / RED
Accountable Person Individual responsible for monitoring
Active Controls Mitigations currently deployed
Disposition Open / Mitigated / Accepted / Closed
Next Review Scheduled reassessment date
Remarks Supplementary context

Situations Requiring External Representation

  • Filed litigation: Any lawsuit brought by or against the organization
  • Government proceedings: Any inquiry from a regulatory agency, government body, or law enforcement
  • Criminal risk: Any scenario involving potential criminal liability for the entity or its people
  • Capital markets implications: Any matter that could affect securities disclosures or regulatory filings
  • Governance-level matters: Any issue necessitating board notification or board-level approval

Situations Strongly Favoring External Engagement

  • Uncharted legal territory: Questions lacking settled authority where the organization's position could establish precedent
  • Multi-jurisdictional complexity: Matters spanning unfamiliar or conflicting legal regimes
  • Outsized financial stakes: Exposure exceeding the organization's defined risk appetite thresholds
  • Specialist knowledge gaps: Subject areas not covered by in-house expertise (antitrust, anti-corruption, patent prosecution, etc.)
  • Major regulatory shifts: New legal frameworks that require compliance program construction or significant adaptation
  • Strategic transactions: Mergers, acquisitions, or major deals requiring diligence, structuring, and regulatory clearance

Situations Worth Evaluating for External Support

  • Significant contractual disputes: Substantial disagreements over interpretation with important business partners
  • Workforce claims: Actual or threatened claims involving discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination, or retaliation
  • Data security events: Incidents that may trigger mandatory notification duties
  • IP conflicts: Infringement allegations (inbound or outbound) involving material products or services
  • Coverage disagreements: Disputes with insurance carriers over claim coverage

Selecting the Right Firm

When recommending outside engagement, prompt the user to weigh:

  • Subject matter depth and track record
  • Familiarity with the relevant jurisdiction
  • Industry sector experience
  • Conflict clearance status
  • Fee structure expectations (hourly, flat, blended, contingency)
  • Firm diversity commitments
  • Pre-existing relationships (panel membership, prior engagements)

Como instalar

1
Executar no seu terminal
npx clawhub@latest install legal-risk-scoring
ou
2
Clique no botão Instalar no topo desta página para configuração com um clique
Conectando à VM...
npx clawhub@latest install legal-risk-scoring
57Estrelas
1Instalações atuais
📦
v1.0.0Versão
📅
Apr 17, 2026Atualizado
Ver código-fonte(ClawHub)

Avaliações

0 avaliações

Faça login para escrever uma avaliação

Nenhuma avaliação ainda. Seja o primeiro a compartilhar sua experiência!