A suite of plugins for legal workflows
This report presents the forensic synthetic code analysis of anthropics/claude-for-legal, a Python project with 8,759 GitHub stars. SynthScan v2.0 examined 49,436 lines of code across 298 source files, recording 390 pattern matches distributed across 7 syntactic categories. The overall adjusted score of 13.5 places this repository in the Low AI signal band.
The scanner applied 160+ deterministic lexical heuristics, multi-line block detectors, abstract syntax tree depth profilers, and a cross-file Jaccard similarity matrix to construct a statistically normalised synthetic code estimate. All matches are individually weighted by severity coefficient and contextual multiplier before summation, and the resulting headline score is temporally discounted to account for the repository's development history relative to the commercial emergence of large language model coding tooling (November 2022 onward).
This chart maps the temporal evolution of the adjusted synthetic code score across successive scan runs. An upward trajectory indicates ongoing incorporation of AI-generated code or expanding LLM-assisted scaffolding; a stable or declining trajectory may reflect active human refactoring, code removal, or the adoption of stricter authorship policies. The dashed secondary line (right axis) independently tracks total raw pattern hit count, which can diverge from the normalised score when codebase size changes significantly between scans.
Classifies detected patterns by their diagnostic confidence and structural impact. CRITICAL patterns (coefficient 10) represent definitive synthetic signatures — hallucinated imports, explicit LLM attribution metadata — virtually never produced by human authors. HIGH (5) indicates strong structural tells such as cross-file repetition or cross-linguistic idioms. MEDIUM (2) covers recognisable conversational padding and AI-specific vocabulary. LOW (1) captures subtle indicators like tautological comments and generic boilerplate that require density to carry independent signal.
This horizontal bar chart decomposes the repository's raw synthetic code score by top-level directory, allowing you to pinpoint precisely which modules or components carry the highest AI authorship density. Directories with disproportionately high scores relative to their size warrant targeted manual review: concentrated AI signatures often trace back to mass-generated configuration layers, auto-ported test suites, LLM-scaffolded boilerplate classes, or entire subsystems authored under heavy copilot assistance. Use this view to prioritise your human code-review effort.
The scanner identified 390 distinct pattern matches across 7 syntactic categories. Each entry below represents a discrete location in the source code where the engine recorded a statistically significant AI authorship indicator. Expand any category row to inspect the individual file paths, line numbers, code snippets, and the lexical context (CODE, COMMENT, or STRING) in which each match was detected.
Reading the findings table: The Severity column indicates the diagnostic confidence level (CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW). The Context column identifies whether the match occurred inside executable code, an inline comment, or a string literal — comment-context matches receive a ×1.5 weight because LLMs systematically over-annotate. The ⚡ bolt icon marks clustered matches: three or more patterns within a 10-line window, each receiving an additional ×1.5 density multiplier as dense clusters constitute far stronger evidence of synthetic authorship than isolated hits.
| Severity | File | Line | Snippet | Context |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LOW | law-student/skills/exam-forecast/SKILL.md | 47 | ### Step 1: Intake | COMMENT |
| LOW | law-student/skills/exam-forecast/SKILL.md | 58 | ### Step 2: Read each past exam | COMMENT |
| LOW | law-student/skills/exam-forecast/SKILL.md | 70 | ### Step 3: Cross-exam pattern analysis | COMMENT |
| LOW | law-student/skills/exam-forecast/SKILL.md | 88 | ### Step 4: Forecast for the upcoming exam | COMMENT |
| LOW | law-student/skills/exam-forecast/SKILL.md | 144 | ### Step 5: Output location | COMMENT |
| LOW⚡ | law-student/skills/legal-writing/SKILL.md | 49 | ### Step 1: Read the whole draft | COMMENT |
| LOW⚡ | law-student/skills/legal-writing/SKILL.md | 53 | ### Step 2: Identify the structural type | COMMENT |
| LOW⚡ | law-student/skills/legal-writing/SKILL.md | 62 | ### Step 3: Structured feedback (no rewriting) | COMMENT |
| LOW | law-student/skills/legal-writing/SKILL.md | 125 | ### Step 4: If the student asks you to rewrite | COMMENT |
| LOW | law-student/skills/legal-writing/SKILL.md | 136 | ### Step 5: Track patterns | COMMENT |
| LOW⚡ | law-student/skills/irac-practice/SKILL.md | 51 | ### Step 1: Establish what we're grading | COMMENT |
| LOW⚡ | law-student/skills/irac-practice/SKILL.md | 60 | ### Step 2: Read the answer closely | COMMENT |
| LOW⚡ | law-student/skills/irac-practice/SKILL.md | 70 | ### Step 3: Structured feedback | COMMENT |
| LOW | law-student/skills/irac-practice/SKILL.md | 142 | ### Step 4: Track patterns | COMMENT |
| LOW⚡ | law-student/skills/socratic-drill/SKILL.md | 40 | ### Step 1: Pick the topic | COMMENT |
| LOW⚡ | law-student/skills/socratic-drill/SKILL.md | 44 | ### Step 2: Ask | COMMENT |
| LOW⚡ | law-student/skills/socratic-drill/SKILL.md | 50 | ### Step 3: Listen and push back | COMMENT |
| LOW | law-student/skills/socratic-drill/SKILL.md | 75 | ### Step 4: Only after they get there | COMMENT |
| LOW⚡ | law-student/skills/outline-builder/SKILL.md | 80 | ### Step 1: Inputs | COMMENT |
| LOW⚡ | law-student/skills/outline-builder/SKILL.md | 89 | ### Step 2: Structure | COMMENT |
| LOW⚡ | law-student/skills/outline-builder/SKILL.md | 95 | ### Step 3: Build — scaffold first, content from sources | COMMENT |
| LOW | law-student/skills/outline-builder/SKILL.md | 133 | ### Step 4: Gaps | COMMENT |
| LOW | law-student/skills/study-plan/SKILL.md | 53 | ### Step 1: What are we planning for | COMMENT |
| LOW | law-student/skills/study-plan/SKILL.md | 65 | ### Step 2: Inputs — one at a time, wait for each | COMMENT |
| LOW | law-student/skills/study-plan/SKILL.md | 109 | ### Step 3: Build the schedule | COMMENT |
| LOW | law-student/skills/study-plan/SKILL.md | 127 | ### Step 4: Write it | COMMENT |
| LOW | law-student/skills/study-plan/SKILL.md | 189 | ### Step 5: Confirm with the student | COMMENT |
| LOW | law-student/skills/cold-call-prep/SKILL.md | 49 | ### Step 1: Identify the reading + professor | COMMENT |
| LOW | law-student/skills/cold-call-prep/SKILL.md | 56 | ### Step 2: Predict the questions | COMMENT |
| LOW | law-student/skills/cold-call-prep/SKILL.md | 91 | ### Step 3: Drill | COMMENT |
| LOW | law-student/skills/cold-call-prep/SKILL.md | 102 | ### Step 4: Post-drill summary | COMMENT |
| LOW | employment-legal/skills/termination-review/SKILL.md | 46 | ### Step 1: The basic facts | COMMENT |
| LOW | employment-legal/skills/termination-review/SKILL.md | 57 | ### Step 2: High-risk flag scan | COMMENT |
| LOW | employment-legal/skills/termination-review/SKILL.md | 116 | ### Step 3: Jurisdiction-specific requirements | COMMENT |
| LOW | employment-legal/skills/termination-review/SKILL.md | 139 | ### Step 4: Severance and release | COMMENT |
| LOW | employment-legal/skills/termination-review/SKILL.md | 166 | ### Step 5: Documentation check | COMMENT |
| LOW | employment-legal/skills/wage-hour-qa/SKILL.md | 44 | ### Step 1: Jurisdiction | COMMENT |
| LOW | employment-legal/skills/wage-hour-qa/SKILL.md | 52 | ### Step 2: Research the rule, then state it | COMMENT |
| LOW | employment-legal/skills/wage-hour-qa/SKILL.md | 166 | ### Step 3: The flag | COMMENT |
| LOW⚡ | employment-legal/skills/handbook-updates/SKILL.md | 28 | ### Step 1: Get the change | COMMENT |
| LOW⚡ | employment-legal/skills/handbook-updates/SKILL.md | 34 | ### Step 2: Diff against current | COMMENT |
| LOW⚡ | employment-legal/skills/handbook-updates/SKILL.md | 43 | ### Step 3: Find cross-references | COMMENT |
| LOW⚡ | employment-legal/skills/handbook-updates/SKILL.md | 53 | ### Step 4: State supplement impact | COMMENT |
| LOW⚡ | employment-legal/skills/handbook-updates/SKILL.md | 61 | ### Step 5: Promise check | COMMENT |
| LOW | employment-legal/skills/policy-drafting/SKILL.md | 36 | ### Step 1: Scope the policy | COMMENT |
| LOW | employment-legal/skills/policy-drafting/SKILL.md | 42 | ### Step 2: Jurisdictional scan | COMMENT |
| LOW | employment-legal/skills/policy-drafting/SKILL.md | 60 | ### Step 3: Draft the core policy | COMMENT |
| LOW | employment-legal/skills/policy-drafting/SKILL.md | 73 | ### Step 4: State supplements | COMMENT |
| LOW | employment-legal/skills/policy-drafting/SKILL.md | 88 | ### Step 5: Cross-check | COMMENT |
| LOW | employment-legal/skills/hiring-review/SKILL.md | 46 | ### Step 1: Jurisdiction | COMMENT |
| LOW | employment-legal/skills/hiring-review/SKILL.md | 58 | ### Step 2: Classification | COMMENT |
| LOW | employment-legal/skills/hiring-review/SKILL.md | 76 | ### Step 3: Restrictive covenants | COMMENT |
| LOW | employment-legal/skills/hiring-review/SKILL.md | 104 | ### Step 4: Jurisdiction-specific requirements | COMMENT |
| LOW | employment-legal/skills/hiring-review/SKILL.md | 123 | ### Step 5: Offer letter content | COMMENT |
| LOW | ip-legal/skills/takedown/SKILL.md | 81 | ### Step 1: Identify the copyrighted work | COMMENT |
| LOW | ip-legal/skills/takedown/SKILL.md | 92 | ### Step 2: Identify the infringing material and its location | COMMENT |
| LOW | ip-legal/skills/takedown/SKILL.md | 103 | ### Step 3: Fair-use gate | COMMENT |
| LOW | ip-legal/skills/takedown/SKILL.md | 120 | ### Step 4: Good-faith belief | COMMENT |
| LOW | ip-legal/skills/takedown/SKILL.md | 133 | ### Step 5: Accuracy and agent authority | COMMENT |
| LOW | ip-legal/skills/takedown/SKILL.md | 141 | ### Step 6: Draft the notice | COMMENT |
| 276 more matches not shown… | ||||
| Severity | File | Line | Snippet | Context |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MEDIUM | README.md | 153 | scripts/ # deploy-managed-agent.sh · validate.py · orchestrate.py · lint-tool-scope.py · test-cookbooks | CODE |
| MEDIUM | README.md | 202 | **Start by connecting a research tool.** Everything else is better with one, and citations are unverified without one. S | CODE |
| MEDIUM | CONTRIBUTING.md | 14 | ## Design principle: SKILL.md encodes the right behavior; CLAUDE.md guardrails | COMMENT |
| MEDIUM | CLAUDE.md | 23 | scripts/ # validate.py, lint-tool-scope.py, orchestrate.py, | CODE |
| MEDIUM | law-student/CLAUDE.md | 116 | ## Shared guardrails | COMMENT |
| MEDIUM | law-student/skills/case-brief/SKILL.md | 64 | ## The brief — scaffold, then the student fills | COMMENT |
| MEDIUM⚡ | law-student/skills/outline-builder/SKILL.md | 95 | ### Step 3: Build — scaffold first, content from sources | COMMENT |
| MEDIUM | employment-legal/CLAUDE.md | 141 | ## Shared guardrails | COMMENT |
| MEDIUM | ip-legal/CLAUDE.md | 152 | ## Shared guardrails | COMMENT |
| MEDIUM | commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md | 317 | ## Shared guardrails | COMMENT |
| MEDIUM | commercial-legal/skills/nda-review/SKILL.md | 20 | Before producing output, check where it's going. If the user has named a destination (a channel, a distribution list, a | CODE |
| MEDIUM | commercial-legal/skills/stakeholder-summary/SKILL.md | 21 | Before producing output, check where it's going. If the user has named a destination (a channel, a distribution list, a | CODE |
| MEDIUM | …mmercial-legal/skills/vendor-agreement-review/SKILL.md | 21 | Before producing output, check where it's going. If the user has named a destination (a channel, a distribution list, a | CODE |
| MEDIUM | product-legal/CLAUDE.md | 152 | ## Shared guardrails | COMMENT |
| MEDIUM | product-legal/skills/launch-review/SKILL.md | 34 | Before producing output, check where it's going. If the user has named a destination (a channel, a distribution list, a | CODE |
| MEDIUM | product-legal/skills/is-this-a-problem/SKILL.md | 33 | Before producing output, check where it's going. If the user has named a destination (a channel, a distribution list, a | CODE |
| MEDIUM | legal-builder-hub/CLAUDE.md | 93 | ## Shared guardrails | COMMENT |
| MEDIUM | litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md | 180 | ## Shared guardrails | COMMENT |
| MEDIUM | litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md | 368 | The canonical column maps to the cross-plugin severity floor described in `## Shared guardrails` below. | CODE |
| MEDIUM | litigation-legal/skills/deposition-prep/SKILL.md | 30 | Before producing output, check where it's going. If the user has named a destination (a channel, a distribution list, a | CODE |
| MEDIUM | litigation-legal/skills/claim-chart/SKILL.md | 239 | ## Patent-mode guardrails (in addition to shared guardrails) | COMMENT |
| MEDIUM | litigation-legal/skills/claim-chart/SKILL.md | 335 | ## Civil-mode guardrails (in addition to shared guardrails) | COMMENT |
| MEDIUM | litigation-legal/skills/claim-chart/SKILL.md | 441 | ## Shared guardrails — checklist | COMMENT |
| MEDIUM | corporate-legal/CLAUDE.md | 146 | ## Shared guardrails | COMMENT |
| MEDIUM | ai-governance-legal/CLAUDE.md | 303 | ## Shared guardrails | COMMENT |
| MEDIUM | privacy-legal/CLAUDE.md | 236 | ## Shared guardrails | COMMENT |
| MEDIUM | privacy-legal/skills/use-case-triage/SKILL.md | 36 | Before producing output, check where it's going. If the user has named a destination (a channel, a distribution list, a | CODE |
| MEDIUM | privacy-legal/skills/pia-generation/SKILL.md | 42 | Before producing output, check where it's going. If the user has named a destination (a channel, a distribution list, a | CODE |
| MEDIUM | privacy-legal/skills/pia-generation/SKILL.md | 67 | **Carry severity from upstream as a floor** per the cross-skill severity floor rule in `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude- | CODE |
| MEDIUM | privacy-legal/skills/dpa-review/SKILL.md | 63 | **Carry severity from the upstream output as a floor** per the cross-skill severity floor rule in `~/.claude/plugins/con | CODE |
| MEDIUM | legal-clinic/CLAUDE.md | 239 | ## Shared guardrails | COMMENT |
| MEDIUM | legal-clinic/skills/client-intake/SKILL.md | 174 | *Every statutory, ordinance, regulatory, rule, or case citation in this section carries a provenance tag (see plugin CLA | COMMENT |
| MEDIUM | regulatory-legal/CLAUDE.md | 173 | ## Shared guardrails | COMMENT |
| MEDIUM | regulatory-legal/skills/policy-redraft/SKILL.md | 31 | ## Hard guardrails — read these first | COMMENT |
| Severity | File | Line | Snippet | Context |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MEDIUM | litigation-legal/matters/_log.yaml | 9 | # ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── | COMMENT |
| MEDIUM | litigation-legal/matters/_log.yaml | 11 | # ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── | COMMENT |
| MEDIUM | litigation-legal/matters/_log.yaml | 62 | # ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── | COMMENT |
| MEDIUM | legal-clinic/deadlines.yaml | 10 | # ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── | COMMENT |
| MEDIUM | legal-clinic/deadlines.yaml | 12 | # ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── | COMMENT |
| MEDIUM | legal-clinic/deadlines.yaml | 30 | # ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── | COMMENT |
| Severity | File | Line | Snippet | Context |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LOW | …kills/renewal-tracker/references/renewal-register.yaml | 1 | # Renewal Register | COMMENT |
| LOW | …kills/renewal-tracker/references/renewal-register.yaml | 21 | # business_owner: "jane@company.com" | COMMENT |
| LOW | legal-builder-hub/references/allowlist-default.yaml | 1 | # Default allowlist for legal-builder-hub | COMMENT |
| LOW | litigation-legal/matters/_log.yaml | 1 | # Portfolio Ledger — litigation-legal | COMMENT |
| LOW | litigation-legal/matters/_log.yaml | 21 | # stage: string — free-text substage (e.g., "pleadings", "fact discovery") | COMMENT |
| LOW | litigation-legal/matters/_log.yaml | 41 | # business_lead: string | null | COMMENT |
| LOW | scripts/deploy-managed-agent.sh | 1 | #!/usr/bin/env bash | COMMENT |
| LOW | .github/workflows/cla.yaml | 21 | if: github.event_name == 'pull_request_target' || contains(github.event.comment.body, 'recheck') || contains(git | COMMENT |
| LOW | legal-clinic/deadlines.yaml | 1 | # Clinic deadline ledger — legal-clinic | COMMENT |
| LOW | legal-clinic/deadlines.yaml | 21 | # timezone: string (optional; default from CLAUDE.md jurisdiction) | COMMENT |
| LOW | …-legal/skills/gap-surfacer/references/gap-tracker.yaml | 1 | # Gap Tracker | COMMENT |
| Severity | File | Line | Snippet | Context |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HIGH | ai-governance-legal/skills/use-case-triage/SKILL.md | 148 | The APPROVED / CONDITIONAL / NOT APPROVED buckets, the red-line definitions, and the CONDITIONAL required-controls list | CODE |
| Severity | File | Line | Snippet | Context |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LOW | litigation-legal/skills/matter-intake/SKILL.md | 251 | counterparty: "Acme Corp" | CODE |
| Severity | File | Line | Snippet | Context |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LOW | scripts/lint-tool-scope.py | 20 | CODE |