title: Find a skill for your task
description: Which jurisdictions and practice areas the first-party skills declare, what each declaration actually covers, and where the gaps are.
url: https://legalquants.github.io/lq-ai/skills/coverage/
checked-against: 671eab0d (2026-10-25)
status: draft
kind: explanation
sources: docs/site/skills/coverage.intro.md, skills, docs/site/_data/coverage-notes.yaml

Two ways to browse the same skills: by jurisdiction and by practice area,
both read from each first-party skill's own `lq_ai.jurisdiction` and
`lq_ai.tags`. Each jurisdiction or practice-area page lists the skills that
cover it today, plus — where one exists — a scope note explaining what
"covered" actually means for that entry. A tag having skills against it
isn't automatically a clean bill of coverage; read the note before assuming
it is.

Litigation is the clearest example why. The `case-law-research` skill
carries the `litigation` tag, but
[PRD §1.6](https://github.com/LegalQuants/lq-ai/blob/671eab0d/docs/PRD.md#16-out-of-scope-v1) excludes "e-discovery or
litigation-specific workflows" outright, and the skill's own "What this
skill does not do" section bounds it further — it won't research non-U.S.
jurisdictions, search statutory or regulatory text, apply retrieved
authority to your facts, or say whether a case is still good law. A page
that showed the tag alone would answer "can it do litigation?" wrongly, by
omission; the scope note exists so it doesn't.

An empty category on this index means no first-party skill was listed
against it — not that nobody has ever written a related skill. Most
jurisdiction- and practice-area-specific work lives in the community
[`lq-skills`](https://github.com/LegalQuants/lq-skills) repository rather
than this one; where this page shows a gap, read
[Where skills live](/lq-ai/skills/where-skills-live/) for the contribution
route. Scope notes and their sources are maintained in
`docs/site/_data/coverage-notes.yaml`; where a note is missing, the entry
reflects frontmatter only and should be read as unverified against the
wider canon.


Built from 17 first-party skills in `skills/`, faceted two ways. A count in the **Skills** column is a count of frontmatter declarations, not a coverage claim — the scope note is what tells you what "covered" means for that row.

## By jurisdiction

| Jurisdiction | Skills | Scope note |
|---|---|---|
| [Jurisdiction-agnostic](/lq-ai/skills/coverage/jurisdiction/agnostic/) | 7 | yes |
| [United States](/lq-ai/skills/coverage/jurisdiction/us/) | 4 | yes |
| [Regime-aware (input-selected)](/lq-ai/skills/coverage/jurisdiction/regime-aware/) | 3 | yes |
| [global](/lq-ai/skills/coverage/jurisdiction/global/) | 1 | no scope notes yet |
| [European Union](/lq-ai/skills/coverage/jurisdiction/eu/) | none | yes |

## By practice area

| Practice area | Skills | Scope note |
|---|---|---|
| [Contracts — review and drafting support](/lq-ai/skills/coverage/practice-area/contracts/) | 7 | yes |
| [Privacy and data protection](/lq-ai/skills/coverage/practice-area/privacy/) | 2 | yes |
| [Litigation](/lq-ai/skills/coverage/practice-area/litigation/) | 1 | yes |
| [Employment](/lq-ai/skills/coverage/practice-area/employment/) | none | yes |
| [Intellectual property](/lq-ai/skills/coverage/practice-area/ip/) | none | yes |

## Gaps

2 practice areas named in `docs/site/_data/coverage-notes.yaml` have no first-party skill against them: [Employment](/lq-ai/skills/coverage/practice-area/employment/), [Intellectual property](/lq-ai/skills/coverage/practice-area/ip/). Each page says whether the area is an open gap or a deliberate scope exclusion.

1 jurisdiction is named with no skill declaring it: [European Union](/lq-ai/skills/coverage/jurisdiction/eu/).

39 tags in skill frontmatter are not grouped into a practice area by `docs/site/_data/coverage-notes.yaml`, so they have no page of its own: `alerts`, `case-law`, `citations`, `commercial`, `communications`, `compliance`, `confidentiality`, `courtlistener`, `deadlines`, `demonstration`, `dpa`, `drafting`, `due-diligence`, `extraction`, `goods`, `internal`, `meta`, `msa`, `nda`, `orchestration`, `plain-language`, `playbooks`, `procurement`, `productivity`, `prompt-engineering`, `purchase`, `qa`, `question-answering`, `regulatory`, `research`, `review`, `saas`, `snapshot`, `subscription`, `supply`, `tabular`, `transformation`, `triage`, `vendor`. A tag is a discovery aid; a practice area is an editorial claim about coverage, and only the second one gets a page.

1 facet has no scope note in `docs/site/_data/coverage-notes.yaml` and reflects frontmatter only: `global`.

## Contributing coverage

A jurisdiction- or practice-area-specific skill contribution routes to the community LegalQuants/lq-skills repository (ADR 0024's skills route), not to this repository's own skills/ directory — this repository's skills/ holds the fifteen first-party built-in skills (the ten M1 starter skills plus case-law-research and four table-mode/ internal skills), per README.md §"Starter skills". Claim the jurisdiction or practice area on a tracking issue first, per skills/CONTRIBUTING.md's contribution process, so two contributors don't duplicate the same coverage. ADR 0024 commits to a standing coverage ledger at docs/contribute/coverage-map.md; that file is not present in the repository as of the checked commit, so this generated index is the closest thing to it today. A practice area PRD §1.6 excludes outright (litigation chief among them) is a different route entirely — it needs a mini-PRD and a committee-decided PRD amendment before any skill work starts, per ADR 0024's fourth route.

[`docs/adr/0024-jurisdiction-and-practice-area-expansion.md`](https://github.com/LegalQuants/lq-ai/blob/671eab0d/docs/adr/0024-jurisdiction-and-practice-area-expansion.md) · [`README.md`](https://github.com/LegalQuants/lq-ai/blob/671eab0d/README.md)


## Next

- [Where skills live](/lq-ai/skills/where-skills-live/)
- [Skill catalogue](/lq-ai/skills/catalogue/)
- [Author your first skill](/lq-ai/skills/author-your-first-skill/)