/worker-classification

name: worker-classification
description: >
  Classify a proposed worker engagement — employee, IC, temp, or vendor — by
  running the applicable jurisdiction tests and flagging misclassification gaps
  between the intended arrangement and what the facts actually support.
  Prospective use only. Use when someone says "we want to bring on a
  contractor", "is this a vendor or a temp", "how should we classify this
  person", or describes a proposed working arrangement.
argument-hint: "[describe the proposed arrangement, or just start and I'll ask]"

/worker-classification

Runs the applicable classification tests for the jurisdiction and flags where the proposed arrangement doesn't match the structure you're trying to use. Prospective only — for existing relationships, consult counsel.

Instructions

1. Load `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/employment-legal/CLAUDE.md` → jurisdictional footprint, escalation table. 2. Run the full workflow below. 3. If the attorney provides details upfront, extract what's available and ask only about the gaps. Do not re-ask information already provided.

Examples

/employment-legal:worker-classification
We want to bring on a data scientist for 6 months, working out of our
SF office, using our tools, embedded in our analytics team.

/employment-legal:worker-classification
Is our recruiter contractor arrangement okay? She works exclusively for
us, sets her own hours, uses her own laptop, project fee per placement.

/employment-legal:worker-classification
(skill will ask for details)

---

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

The most expensive classification decision is the one nobody made consciously. Someone describes what they want ("a contractor"), the engagement starts, and two years later the facts look like employment. This skill walks the applicable tests on the proposed arrangement before it starts — and tells you when what you're describing doesn't match the structure you're trying to use.

This skill teaches the reasoning pattern. It does not state the law. Every test formulation, statutory citation, threshold, and carve-out must come from current research for the applicable jurisdiction.

Prospective-only hard gate — run BEFORE intake

**This skill analyzes a PROPOSED engagement before the work starts.** Before any substantive intake (Step 1), ask:

> Has this work already started? Is the worker currently engaged, or have they been performing work under this arrangement for any period of time (days, weeks, months, or years)?

If the answer is yes — the engagement already exists, in any form, for any duration — **STOP**. Do not proceed to Step 1 intake. Classifying an existing arrangement is not a planning exercise; it's a liability assessment with remediation implications: back pay (OT, meal/rest premiums), unpaid employer-side payroll tax, benefits eligibility that was denied, unemployment and workers' comp back-exposure, state penalties (in CA, PAGA), IRS § 530 relief analysis, and — in strict-test jurisdictions with ongoing work — the prospective exposure of letting it run another day. That analysis is privileged, led by counsel, and coupled with a remediation plan.

Output exactly this block and wait for a response:

> **Out of scope — existing arrangement.** > > This skill is designed to analyze a worker engagement *before it starts*, so the classification choice informs how to structure the contract and operations. You've described an arrangement that already exists. Analyzing an existing engagement retroactively is a different exercise: reclassification risk assessment coupled with remediation planning — back-pay exposure, payroll-tax back-exposure, penalty exposure, benefits exposure, IRS § 530 relief analysis, and prospective restructuring. That work should be privileged, led by an attorney, and likely coupled with outside-counsel review given the dollar and enforcement exposure. > > Recommended next step: escalate per your config's escalation table (for retroactive classification, this typically routes to GC + outside employment counsel). I've flagged this for escalation routing. > > **If you want to proceed with the prospective-style analysis anyway for planning purposes, say "proceed anyway" — but understand:** > > - The output is NOT a remediation plan and should not be treated as one. > - The output does NOT scope back-pay, penalty, or payroll-tax exposure for the period already worked. > - The output does NOT substitute for the reclassification-risk assessment that this fact pattern actually calls for. > - The output will carry a prominent banner reflecting this scope mismatch, and the consequential-action gate will require an attorney yes before the analysis is treated as reliable. > > Only say "proceed anyway" if you're using this skill for forward-looking planning (e.g., "if we were structuring this fresh today, how should we think about it?") and you have a separate plan for the remediation question.

**Only proceed past this gate with an explicit `"proceed anyway"` (or equivalent user instruction). A hesitant "I guess" does not count — re-prompt. If the user proceeds anyway, prepend this banner to every output of this skill for this session:**

⚠️ SCOPE MISMATCH — OUT-OF-SCOPE USE
This skill analyzes prospecti