Create a Skill

Who can create a Skill?

Any lawyer with domain expertise can author a Compound Skill. You do not need to be a member of the Compound team or have any special technical background. If you have built a reliable workflow for a specific legal task — the kind of structured analysis you run through every time a particular contract type or regulatory question lands on your desk — you already have the raw material for a Skill.

Skills are authored in plain Markdown. If you can write an email, you can write a Skill.

---

Skill anatomy

Every Skill is a single .md file with two parts: frontmatter (structured metadata in YAML) and body (the workflow the AI agent will follow).

Frontmatter

The frontmatter sits between two --- lines at the top of the file. Each field tells the platform how to categorise, display, and route the Skill.

Field	Type	Purpose
title	string	The display name shown in the Skills library. Keep it short and descriptive.
description	string	One or two sentences summarising what the Skill does. This appears in search results and preview cards.
category	string	The legal domain. Options: vertragsrecht (Contract Law), arbeitsrecht (Employment Law), gesellschaftsrecht (Corporate Law), datenschutz (Data Protection), compliance, ki-regulierung (AI Regulation).
jurisdiction	array	Which jurisdictions the Skill covers: DE, EU, or DACH. Use an array even for a single value, e.g. ['DE'].
author.name	string	Your full name as you want it displayed.
author.image	string	Path to your author portrait, e.g. /assets/images/team/yourname.webp.
version	string	Year-month of last substantive update, e.g. 2026-04.
tags	array	3-5 keywords for search and filtering, e.g. ['nda', 'confidentiality', 'due-diligence'].
featured	boolean	Set to false for new submissions. Compound promotes Skills to true after editorial review.
publishDate	string	The date you submit, in the format April 5, 2026.
lang	string	Language code. Use en-DE for English (Germany) or de-DE for German.
slug	string	URL-safe identifier, e.g. nda-pruefung. Lowercase, hyphens only, no spaces.

Body structure

The body is where the legal substance lives. Structure it in three sections:

Overview — Explain what the Skill does, which document types or situations it applies to, and when a practitioner should reach for it. Mention the key statutes up front so the AI agent has context immediately.

Steps — Numbered, sequential. Each step should state (1) what to check, (2) what to look for, and (3) what to flag as a risk. Think of this as the checklist you would hand to a qualified associate on their first day handling this type of matter. Be concrete: “Check whether the non-compete clause includes a Karenzentschadigung of at least 50% of the most recent remuneration (§ 74(2) HGB)” is useful; “Review the non-compete” is not.

FAQ — Two to five questions that practitioners commonly ask when encountering this type of task. These help the AI agent handle follow-up queries without hallucinating an answer.

---

Example: a well-structured Skill

---
title: 'Freelancer Contract Review'
description: 'Systematic review of freelancer service agreements under German law. Identifies Scheinselbstandigkeit risk, missing clauses, and unfavourable terms.'
category: 'arbeitsrecht'
jurisdiction: ['DE']
author:
  name: 'Dr. Anna Meier'
  image: '/assets/images/team/annameier.webp'
version: '2026-04'
tags: ['freelancer', 'scheinselbstandigkeit', 'service-agreement', 'employment-law']
featured: false
publishDate: 'April 5, 2026'
lang: 'en-DE'
slug: 'freelancer-contract-review'
---

## Overview

This Skill guides the review of freelancer service agreements (Dienstvertrage and Werkvertrage) under German law. The primary risk is misclassification as disguised employment (Scheinselbstandigkeit), which triggers retroactive social security contributions (§ 28p SGB IV) and potential criminal liability for the principal (§ 266a StGB). Use this Skill whenever a client engages a freelancer or when reviewing an existing freelancer arrangement.

## Steps

1. **Contract type** -- Determine whether the agreement is a Dienstvertrag (§ 611 BGB) or Werkvertrag (§ 631 BGB). A Werkvertrag requires a defined deliverable and shifts the performance risk to the contractor. If the contract describes ongoing services with no deliverable, it leans toward a service or employment relationship.

2. **Personal dependency indicators** -- Check for clauses that require the freelancer to work at specific times, from specific locations, or using the client's equipment. Under § 611a BGB, personal dependency on instructions regarding time, place, and manner of work is the decisive criterion for an employment relationship.

3. **Integration into the organisation** -- Flag references to team meetings, reporting lines, company email addresses, or office space. Integration into the principal's organisational structure is a strong indicator of employment per DRV case law.

4. **Substitution right** -- Verify that the freelancer may delegate tasks to a substitute without prior approval. A prohibition on substitution suggests personal dependency.

5. **Payment structure** -- Monthly fixed payments resemble salary. Genuine freelancer agreements tie payment to deliverables, milestones, or hourly rates with invoicing.

6. **Termination provisions** -- Check the notice period. Employment-like notice periods (e.g. four weeks to the end of the month) are a red flag. Freelancer contracts typically allow termination upon completion of the project or with short contractual notice.

## FAQ

**What happens if a freelancer is reclassified as an employee?**
The principal owes retroactive social security contributions for up to four years (§ 25(1) SGB IV), including the employee's share. The managing director may face personal criminal liability under § 266a StGB for failure to remit contributions.

**Can a Statusfeststellungsverfahren (§ 7a SGB IV) resolve uncertainty?**
Yes. Either party can request a status determination from the DRV Bund. This is recommended before commencing any long-term freelancer engagement.

---

Writing guidelines

1. Be specific, not general. Every step should describe exactly what to look for and why it matters. Cite the statute: “Check for compliance with §§ 305-310 BGB” gives the AI agent and the reader a concrete anchor.
2. Think like you are briefing a competent colleague. You are not writing a textbook. Assume the reader knows the basics of German law but has not handled this particular workflow before.
3. One workflow per Skill. Do not combine an AGB review with a data protection audit. If two tasks require different expertise, they belong in separate Skills.
4. Cite statutes and case law. References to specific provisions (e.g. § 307 BGB, § 28p SGB IV, Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR) make the Skill precise and verifiable.
5. Test with an AI agent before submitting. Paste your Skill into Claude or Codex along with a real document and check whether the agent follows each step correctly. If it skips a step or misinterprets an instruction, your wording needs work.

---

Common mistakes

• Being too vague. “Check the contract for issues” tells the AI nothing. Each step must specify what to check and what constitutes a problem.
• Missing edge cases. If a clause behaves differently for merchants (Kaufleute) than for consumers, say so. If an EU regulation overrides a German provision in cross-border situations, note it.
• Ignoring jurisdiction-specific considerations. A Skill tagged with ['DACH'] must account for differences between German, Austrian, and Swiss law — or explicitly state which provisions apply only in DE.
• Forgetting the FAQ section. The FAQ catches the follow-up questions that practitioners inevitably ask. Without it, the AI agent will improvise answers, which is exactly what you want to avoid.
• Overloading a single Skill. If your workflow has more than ten steps, consider splitting it into two Skills.

---

Testing your Skill

Before you submit, run your Skill through a real scenario:

1. Open Claude or Codex and paste the full Skill as a system prompt or instruction set.
2. Provide a real document (redacted if necessary) that the Skill is designed to review.
3. Walk through the output step by step. Did the agent address every step in your checklist? Did it flag the right risks? Did it cite the correct statutes?
4. If the agent skipped a step or produced a vague answer, revise the corresponding instruction. The most common fix is adding specificity: replace “check the liability clause” with “check whether liability for slight negligence (leichte Fahrlassigkeit) is excluded and whether this exclusion is permissible under § 309 No. 7 BGB.”
5. Repeat until the output is reliable across at least two or three different documents.

---

Submission process

Send your completed Skill to [email protected] with:

• The .md file.
• A brief note about your expertise in this area (e.g., years of practice, relevant specialisation, notable matters).
• Whether you want to be listed as the author with full attribution.

Compound reviews every submission for quality, legal accuracy, and completeness. We check that steps are specific enough for an AI agent to follow, that statutory references are correct, and that the Skill covers the most important edge cases. Accepted Skills are published in the Compound Skills library. If you opt in to author attribution, your name and portrait appear alongside the Skill.

We may suggest edits before publication. This is a collaborative process — the goal is to build the most useful Skills library for legal practitioners working with AI.