# Assessment Report Template

The output of this skill must use the structure below, in this exact order. The order is non-negotiable: a non-lawyer can stop after section 1, and a drafter can drill into the pillar tables from section 3 onward.

---

# Legal Design Assessment — [Document identifier]

**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Reviewer:** [name]
**Materials reviewed:** [URL / file / pasted text — note word count and language]
**Document type:** [contract / NDA / T&C / privacy policy / employee handbook / court filing / statute / other]
**Audience:** [consumer / employee / business / professional / general public]
**Layout available:** [yes / no]

---

## 1. Executive summary

### Composite Legal Design Score

**[XX] / 100 — [band]**

One-line interpretation: [e.g., "Document is in the Mixed band; real legal-design problems present, redrafting pass warranted."]

### Top critical issues (Red)

1. [One line, plain language]
2. [One line, plain language]
3. [One line, plain language]

### Top material issues (Amber)

1. [One line]
2. [One line]
3. [One line]

### Plain-language summary

[3–5 sentences explaining the bottom line for a non-specialist reader. No pillar names, no statute citations, no scores. Tell the reader what the document does well and where it fails them. End with a one-line recommendation: redraft / targeted fixes / acceptable as is.]

---

## 2. Scope and methodology

| Item | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Document language | … |
| Word count (W) | … |
| Sentence count (S) | … |
| Jurisdiction inferred | … |
| Jurisdiction confidence | High / Medium / Low / Unknown |
| Signals used for jurisdiction | … |
| Pillar weights applied | … |
| Visual hierarchy assessed? | Yes / No (skipped because plain text) |
| Statutory-duplication pillar | Full weight / Reduced / Skipped |
| Audience calibration applied to readability | … |
| Limitations of this assessment | Brief list (see also Section 11) |

---

## 3. Pillar 1 — Linguistic patterns

**Pillar score: [XX] / 100**

### Aggregate counts

| Metric | Value | Band |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Archaism density (/1,000 words) | … | … |
| Passive density | …% | … |
| Nominalization density (/1,000 words) | … | … |
| Mean sentence length | … words | … |
| Median sentence length | … words | … |
| Sentences > 40 words ("long") | … | — |
| Sentences > 60 words ("very long") | … | — |
| Doubled negatives | … | … |
| Wydick / Cornu / Fischer-Dieskau offenders | … | — |
| Cross-references / 1,000 words | … | … |

### Flagged passages

| # | Pattern | Quote (verbatim) | Location | Severity | Note |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 3.1 | … | … | … | … | … |

### Synthesis

[One short paragraph naming the dominant linguistic problem in the document, e.g., "The document is characterised by heavy nominalization and a passive density of 34%, both well above the band for consumer-facing documents."]

---

## 4. Pillar 2 — Readability metrics

**Pillar score: [XX] / 100**

### Computed scores

For each metric applied to the document, report:

```
Metric: [Flesch Reading Ease / Kandel–Moles / Amstad / WSTF / LIX / FKGL]
Counts: W=…, S=…, Sy=… (and LW, MS, IW, ES as applicable)
Raw score: …
Band: …
Audience calibration: +0 / +5 / +15 / +25
Component score: …
```

Repeat for each metric.

### Synthesis

[One short paragraph interpreting the band. Compare against the audience-appropriate benchmark — well-drafted consumer T&C, average newspaper, average commercial contract. Avoid declaring the document "fails" — say it scores in the X band, which for this audience type means Y.]

---

## 5. Pillar 3 — Structure and navigation

**Pillar score: [XX] / 100**

### Section length distribution

| Section | Words | Sub-sections | Note |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1. … | … | … | … |
| 2. … | … | … | … |

### Findings

| # | Issue | Location | Severity | Note |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 5.1 | … | … | … | … |

### Synthesis

[Paragraph on heading hierarchy, defined-terms management, and the document's signposting strategy if any.]

---

## 6. Pillar 4 — Hidden conditions

**Pillar score: [XX] / 100**

### Findings

| # | Technique | Quote (verbatim) | Location | Severity | Note |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 6.1 | … | … | … | … | … |

### Synthesis

[Paragraph naming the placement techniques most heavily used and the impact on the reader.]

---

## 7. Pillar 5 — Statutory duplication

**Pillar score: [XX] / 100  (or `Unverified — jurisdiction-dependent` if jurisdiction confidence is Low / Unknown)**

### Findings

| # | Case (A / "ritual" / B / C) | Quote (verbatim) | Location | Likely statute | Severity | Note |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 7.1 | … | … | … | … | … | … |

### Synthesis

[Paragraph on whether the document substantively bargains around statutory defaults or merely paraphrases them; note any restatements of mandatory consumer rights that risk misstating the right.]

---

## 8. Pillar 6 — Visual hierarchy

*Include this section only if layout is available.*

**Pillar score: [XX] / 100**

### Findings

| # | Issue | Location (page / element) | Severity | Note |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 8.1 | … | … | … | … |

### Synthesis

[Paragraph on whether the document is visually accessible to its audience.]

---

## 9. Composite score and band

**Composite Legal Design Score: [XX] / 100 — [band]**

| Pillar | Score | Weight applied | Weighted contribution |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Linguistic patterns | … | …% | … |
| Readability metrics | … | …% | … |
| Structure and navigation | … | …% | … |
| Hidden conditions | … | …% | … |
| Statutory duplication | … | …% | … |
| Visual hierarchy | … | …% | … |
| **Total** | — | 100% | **[XX]** |

Band interpretation: [Excellent / Good / Mixed / Poor / Very poor — with the one-paragraph band description from SKILL.md.]

---

## 10. Prioritised attention list

Numbered list of the most consequential drafting debts identified. Order by impact on the user of the document, not by pillar:

1. **[Red] [pillar]** — [Finding in one line; locator]
2. **[Red] [pillar]** — …
3. **[Amber] [pillar]** — …
4. **[Amber] [pillar]** — …
5. …

Aim for 8–15 items. More than that overwhelms; fewer than that under-uses the audit.

---

## 11. Assumptions and limitations

- Document language detected as: …
- Jurisdiction inferred as: … (confidence: …; signals: …)
- The following pillars carried full / reduced / skipped weight: …
- The following could not be assessed from the materials provided: …
- This assessment is a legal-design review only. It is not a substantive legal opinion on the enforceability or correctness of any provision, and it does not address compliance with any specific statute.
- Statutory citations in this report are flagged as `Likely [statute] — verify` rather than asserted with precision. Verify against the official text before relying on any duplication finding.

---

*This audit is a legal-design assessment of the materials provided. It is not legal advice and does not create a lawyer-client relationship.*
