settlement-agreement-review-andrew-bird
Reviews or drafts the agreement that pays an employee to settle their claims — and flags the statutory conditions that decide whether it actually binds them. Works under s.203 ERA 1996 for England & Wales. Flags apparent s.203 condition gaps for a solicitor to confirm (writing, specific complaints, independent adviser, identification, insurance, statement of conditions), drafts the substantive terms (sum, tax characterisation, confidentiality, references, restrictive covenants, indemnities), and surfaces enforceability risks. Does not rule on validity and is not legal advice. Use when the user
npx skills add lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills --skill settlement-agreement-review-andrew-bird --agent claude-code
Same command for any agent — swap --agent for codex, cursor, copilot.
Weekly change comes from our own snapshots, not the repository page — it measures attention, not adoption.
# /settlement-agreement-review 1. Flag apparent gaps against the s.203 ERA 1996 conditions for a solicitor to confirm. This skill does not rule on validity. As legal context: if a condition is genuinely missing, the agreement does not contract out of statutory rights and the employee can still claim — so each gap matters and must be confirmed by a qualified adviser. 2. Review the substantive terms against the party's position (employer or employee). 3. Surface tax issues (ITEPA 2003 — termination payments, PENP). Never present computed figures as authoritative — they are prompts for an accountant to sign off. 4. Output a marked-up version with comments or a clean draft. --- # Settlement agreement (s.203 ERA 1996) ## Purpose A settlement agreement is the standard vehicle for compromising employment claims. It must comply with the conditions in s.203 ERA 1996 `[CITE NEEDED — s.203 ERA 1996]` (and equivalent provisions in other statutes — EqA 2010 s.144 `[CITE NEEDED — s.144 EqA 2010]`, TULR(C)A 1992 s.288, etc.) to validly settle the statutory claims it purports to cover. Otherwise the employee remains free to bring a claim. This skill flags apparent gaps in those conditions; it does
- Purpose
- s.203 statutory conditions (cumulative — all must be satisfied)
- Substantive terms — checklist
- Payment
- Confidentiality and non-disparagement
- Reference
- Warranties and reps
- Restrictive covenants
- Claims covered
- Governing law / jurisdiction
- Workflow
- Step 1 — Apparent statutory status (flag, do not rule)
- Step 2 — Substantive review
- Step 3 — Tax review
What does the settlement-agreement-review-andrew-bird skill do?
Reviews or drafts the agreement that pays an employee to settle their claims — and flags the statutory conditions that decide whether it actually binds them. Works under s.203 ERA 1996 for England & Wales. Flags apparent s.203 condition gaps for a solicitor to confirm (writing, specific complaints, independent adviser, identification, insurance, statement of conditions), drafts the substantive terms (sum, tax characterisation, confidentiality, references, restrictive covenants, indemnities), and surfaces enforceability risks. Does not rule on validity and is not legal advice. Use when the user
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills --skill settlement-agreement-review-andrew-bird --agent claude-code` — it drops the skill into your project so the agent can pick it up. Swap the --agent value for codex, cursor or copilot if you use one of those.
Where does this skill come from?
From lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills, a repository with 618 stars. We read it straight from the repository tree rather than a submitted listing, so what you see here is what is actually published.
Is a popular skill a good skill?
Not necessarily. Stars measure attention, not adoption — a repository can trend for a week and be abandoned. That is why we show the weekly change from our own snapshots next to the total, instead of a single flattering number.