/hiring-review

name: hiring-review
description: >
  Review an offer letter and any restrictive covenants — jurisdiction check
  included. Substantive rules (covenant enforceability, pay-transparency,
  salary-history limits, exemption criteria) are researched per hire, not
  stored. Use when the user says "review this offer", "can we use a
  non-compete here", "check this offer letter", "hiring in [state]", or
  attaches an offer.
argument-hint: "[offer letter file, or describe the hire]"

/hiring-review

1. Load `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/employment-legal/CLAUDE.md` → jurisdictional footprint, hiring review triggers, restrictive covenant policy. 2. Use the workflow below. 3. Check: jurisdiction, classification, restrictive covenants, background check compliance. 4. Flag anything that hits the jurisdiction-specific escalation table.

---

Matter context

**Matter context.** Check `## Matter workspaces` in the practice-level CLAUDE.md. If `Enabled` is `✗` (the default for in-house users), skip the rest of this paragraph — skills use practice-level context and the matter machinery is invisible. If enabled and there is no active matter, ask: "Which matter is this for? Run `/employment-legal:matter-workspace switch <slug>` or say `practice-level`." Load the active matter's `matter.md` for matter-specific context and overrides. Write outputs to the matter folder at `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/employment-legal/matters/<matter-slug>/`. Never read another matter's files unless `Cross-matter context` is `on`.

---

Purpose

Offer letters are mostly boilerplate until they're not. The jurisdiction check and the restrictive-covenant check are where this skill earns its keep. The skill does not state the law — every jurisdiction-specific rule is researched and cited at the time of review.

Load context

`~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/employment-legal/CLAUDE.md` → jurisdictional footprint, hiring review triggers, restrictive covenant policy, offer letter template location.

Output header

Prepend the work-product header from `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/employment-legal/CLAUDE.md` → `## Outputs` (it differs by user role — see `## Who's using this`).

Workflow

Step 1: Jurisdiction

Where will this person work? Not where HQ is — where *they* are.

If remote: their home state/country governs. If hybrid: usually their home state, but check the offer letter's choice-of-law clause (may or may not hold up).

Check the jurisdiction table in `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/employment-legal/CLAUDE.md` for this state/country. If it's not in the table — new jurisdiction — flag that: "First hire in [state]. The jurisdiction table doesn't cover this. Research needed before offer goes out."

Step 2: Classification

Exempt or non-exempt? The offer should say, and the role should support it.

| Test | Check | |---|---| | Salary basis | Paid a fixed salary regardless of hours? | | Salary level | Above the applicable federal and state thresholds? | | Duties test | Does the role actually involve the exempt duties? |

> **Research before calling exemption.** Identify the currently operative > salary thresholds (federal and state — several states index annually and > several have tiered thresholds by employer size) and the applicable duties > test(s) for the role. Cite primary sources. Verify currency.

If the offer says exempt but the role description does not support the exempt duties — flag it. Misclassification is expensive.

Step 3: Restrictive covenants

If the offer includes a non-compete, customer non-solicit, employee non-solicit, or confidentiality/IP assignment:

> **Research enforceability before advising.** For the employee's jurisdiction, > identify the currently operative rules on each restrictive covenant in the > offer. Non-compete enforceability in particular has shifted in multiple > states in recent years through legislation, agency action, and litigation — > do not rely on prior memory of which states permit non-competes. Note: > - The specific type of covenant (non-compete, customer non-solicit, employee > non-solicit, confidentiality/trade-secret, IP assignment) — each has its > own rules. > - Any salary or income threshold that conditions enforceability. > - Any notice, consideration, or garden-leave requirements. > - Any industry-specific carve-outs (e.g., healthcare, broadcasting). > - Duration and geographic-scope reasonableness tests. > - Choice-of-law and choice-of-forum enforceability for out-of-state covenants. > Cite primary sources. Verify currency.

Per `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/employment-legal/CLAUDE.md` restrictive covenant policy: does this hire even get one? Some companies use them selectively. Apply the house policy first, then research overlays from the jurisdiction.

> **No silent supplement.** If a research query to the configured legal research tool returns few or no results for the jurisdiction's exemption thresholds, restrictive-covenant rules, pay-transparency law, or any other item you're researching, report what was found and stop. Do NOT fill the gap from web search or model knowledge without asking. Say: "The search returned [N] results from [tool]. Coverage appears thin for [jurisdiction / topic]. Options: (1) broaden the search query, (2) try a different research tool, (3) search the web — results will be tagged `[web search — verify]` and should be checked against a primary source before relying, or (4) flag as unverified and stop. Which would you like?" A lawyer decides whether to accept lower-confidence sources. > > **Source attribution.** Tag every citation in the review with where it came from: `[Westlaw]`, `[CourtListener]`, or the MCP tool name for citations retrieved from a legal research connector; `[web search — verify]` for web-search citations; `[model knowledge — verify]` for citations recalled from training data; `[user provided]` for citations th