Adapt employment-legal plugin for UK law

employment-legal/.claude-plugin/plugin.json

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 {
   "name": "employment-legal",
   "version": "1.0.2",
-  "description": "Reviews hires and terminations for jurisdiction-specific risk flags, classifies workers against the controlling state test, tracks leave deadlines before they're missed, runs internal investigations, and drafts policies with state supplements where the law differs.",
+  "description": "Reviews hires and terminations for UK employment law risk flags, classifies workers across the employee/worker/self-employed spectrum, tracks statutory leave deadlines before they're missed, runs internal investigations, and drafts policies with jurisdiction supplements for England & Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.",
   "author": {
     "name": "Anthropic"
   }

employment-legal/.gitignore

@@ -1 +1,2 @@
 .DS_Store
+last-event.log

employment-legal/.mcp.json

@@ -1,22 +1,49 @@
 {
   "mcpServers": {
-    "Slack": {
+    "uk-legal": {
       "type": "http",
-      "url": "https://mcp.slack.com/mcp",
-      "title": "Slack",
-      "description": "Search messages, read channels, find discussions across your workspace."
+      "url": "https://uk-legal-mcp.fly.dev/mcp",
+      "title": "UK Legal",
+      "description": "UK case law (TNA Find Case Law), legislation (legislation.gov.uk), Hansard, Bills, Parliamentary Votes, Committees, HMRC guidance, and OSCOLA citation parsing."
     },
-    "Google Drive": {
+    "bailii": {
+      "type": "stdio",
+      "command": "bailii-mcp",
+      "title": "BAILII",
+      "description": "British and Irish Legal Information Institute — full-text case law search and judgment retrieval. Must run locally (BAILII blocks cloud IPs)."
+    },
+    "govuk": {
+      "type": "http",
+      "url": "https://govuk-mcp.fly.dev/mcp",
+      "title": "GOV.UK",
+      "description": "GOV.UK content, guidance, organisations, and postcode-to-local-authority lookup."
+    },
+    "uk-due-diligence": {
+      "type": "http",
+      "url": "https://uk-due-diligence-mcp.fly.dev/mcp",
+      "title": "UK Due Diligence",
+      "description": "Companies House, Charity Commission, HMLR Land Registry, The Gazette (insolvency notices), and HMRC VAT register."
+    },
+    "whatdotheyknow": {
       "type": "http",
-      "url": "https://drivemcp.googleapis.com/mcp/v1",
-      "title": "Google Drive",
-      "description": "Search, read, and fetch documents from Google Drive."
+      "url": "https://whatdotheyknow-mcp.fly.dev/mcp",
+      "title": "WhatDoTheyKnow",
+      "description": "WhatDoTheyKnow FOI request data — search and read public Freedom of Information requests and responses."
+    },
+    "property": {
+      "type": "http",
+      "url": "https://property-shared.fly.dev/mcp",
+      "title": "UK Property",
+      "description": "UK property data — comparable sales, EPC certificates, rental yields, SDLT calculations, planning search, and property report generation."
     }
   },
   "recommendedCategories": [
-    "hris",
+    "legal-research",
+    "legislation",
+    "case-law",
+    "foi",
     "documents",
-    "chat",
+    "hris",
     "email"
   ]
 }

employment-legal/CLAUDE.md

@@ -86,20 +86,20 @@ A false assurance of protection is worse than no marking. The lawyer who relies
 
 *Remove the header from externally-facing deliverables (offer letters sent to candidates, termination letters, severance agreements circulated to counterparties, agency responses) — see the specific skill's instructions. Privilege depends on facts beyond labeling; the internal-investigation skill has additional privilege-formation requirements.*
 
-**Non-lawyer output mode.** When the practice profile says the user is not a lawyer, structure outputs for a reader who can't unpack legal shorthand: (1) the attorney brief goes at the top, not buried, (2) every legal flag gets a one-line plain-English gloss in parentheses, (3) every statutory cite gets a plain-English subject line. Example: "Flag: potential Cal-WARN issue (Cal. Lab. Code §1400) — California requires 60 days notice before large layoffs." Test: could the reader take the output to their boss and explain it without a lawyer in the room?
+**Non-lawyer output mode.** When the practice profile says the user is not a lawyer, structure outputs for a reader who can't unpack legal shorthand: (1) the attorney brief goes at the top, not buried, (2) every legal flag gets a one-line plain-English gloss in parentheses, (3) every statutory cite gets a plain-English subject line. Example: "Flag: potential collective redundancy consultation failure (TULRCA 1992 s.188) — UK law requires 45 days' consultation before dismissing 100+ employees for redundancy." Test: could the reader take the output to their boss and explain it without a lawyer in the room?
 
 ---
 
 **⚠️ Reviewer note — one block above the deliverable.** This is the ONE place for everything the reviewer needs to know before relying on the output. Collapse every pre-flight flag, caveat, and meta-note here — do NOT scatter them through the body. Format:
 
 > **⚠️ Reviewer note**
-> - **Sources:** [Research connector: CourtListener ✓ verified | not connected — cites from training knowledge, verify before relying]
+> - **Sources:** [Research connector: uk-legal MCP ✓ verified | not connected — cites from training knowledge, verify before relying]
 > - **Read:** [pages 1-50 of 200 | all 3 documents | N items in register | N/A]
 > - **Flagged for your judgment:** [N items marked `[review]` inline | none]
 > - **Currency:** [searched for developments since [date] — nothing found | found N updates, noted inline | could not search, verify [specific rules]]
 > - **Before relying:** [the 1-2 things the reviewer should actually do — or "ready for your eyes" if clean]
 
-If everything is green (research tool connected, full read, no flags, currency checked), collapse to one line: `⚠️ Reviewer note: CourtListener verified · full read · no flags · ready for your eyes`. Don't pad with bullets that all say "no issues."
+If everything is green (research tool connected, full read, no flags, currency checked), collapse to one line: `⚠️ Reviewer note: uk-legal MCP verified · full read · no flags · ready for your eyes`. Don't pad with bullets that all say "no issues."
 
 **The deliverable below is clean.** No banners, no inline meta-commentary, no tracker state narration ("Added to the register..." — do it, don't narrate it). Inline tags are minimal: only `[review]` on the specific lines that need attorney judgment, and source tags (`[model knowledge — verify]`) only where a cite appears. Everything the reviewer needs to DO something about is flagged `[review]`; everything else is just the content.
 
@@ -141,12 +141,12 @@ When a skill in this plugin faces a subjective legal judgment — is this a P0 b
 ## Shared guardrails
 ## Pre-flight citation check
 
-Before any skill cites a case, statute, regulation, or rule, test whether a legal research connector (CourtListener, or a statute/regulator source) is actually responding — not just configured. If none is, record it in the **Sources:** line of the reviewer note (see `## Outputs`) — e.g., `not connected — cites from training knowledge, verify before relying`. Do not emit a standalone banner above the header. The reviewer note is the single place this signal lives; per-citation `[model knowledge — verify]` tags remain inline.
+Before any skill cites a case, statute, regulation, or rule, test whether a legal research connector (uk-legal MCP, BAILII, legislation.gov.uk, or govuk MCP) is actually responding — not just configured. If none is, record it in the **Sources:** line of the reviewer note (see `## Outputs`) — e.g., `not connected — cites from training knowledge, verify before relying`. Do not emit a standalone banner above the header. The reviewer note is the single place this signal lives; per-citation `[model knowledge — verify]` tags remain inline.
 
 ## Source attribution
 
 Source tags describe what you actually did, not what you'd like to claim.
-- `[CourtListener]` — ONLY if the citation appears in a tool result from that MCP in this conversation.
+- `[uk-legal MCP]` / `[BAILII]` / `[legislation.gov.uk]` / `[govuk MCP]` — ONLY if the citation appears in a tool result from that MCP in this conversation.
 - `[statute / regulator site]` — ONLY if you fetched the text from an official source this session.
 - `[user provided]` — the user pasted or linked it.
 - `[model knowledge — verify]` — everything else. This is the default.
@@ -157,11 +157,11 @@ Do not promote a tag because the citation "seems right." The tag describes prove
 **Tag vocabulary — at a glance.** The inline tags are load-bearing. Use them consistently across skills:
 
 - `[verify]` — a factual claim (cite, date, deadline, threshold, registration number, rule text) the reader should confirm against a primary source before relying on it. Use the longer form `[model knowledge — verify]` when the source is training knowledge so the reader knows what flavor of verify to do.
-- `[review]` — a judgment call the attorney needs to make. Not a factual gap; a place where the skill surfaced a position the lawyer has to decide.
-- `[CourtListener]` / `[statute / regulator site]` / `[user provided]` — where a cite actually came from. Provenance, not confidence. Only use these when the cite literally appeared in that source in this session.
+- `[review]` — a judgment call the attorney/solicitor needs to make. Not a factual gap; a place where the skill surfaced a position the lawyer has to decide.
+- `[uk-legal MCP]` / `[BAILII]` / `[legislation.gov.uk]` / `[govuk MCP]` / `[statute / regulator site]` / `[user provided]` — where a cite actually came from. Provenance, not confidence. Only use these when the cite literally appeared in that source in this session.
 - `[VERIFY: …]` / `[UNCERTAIN: …]` — expanded forms of `[verify]` used in brief-drafting and chronology skills with the specific claim spelled out. Same intent.
 
-A reviewer-note shorthand like "CourtListener verified" is honest only when a research tool actually returned the cite — it describes what the tool did, not what the skill's output is. The skill's output is never "verified" by the skill itself; the reader is what verifies.
+A reviewer-note shorthand like "uk-legal MCP verified" is honest only when a research tool actually returned the cite — it describes what the tool did, not what the skill's output is. The skill's output is never "verified" by the skill itself; the reader is what verifies.
 
 
 These rules apply to every skill in this plugin. Skills may repeat them in their own instructions, but this is the canonical statement — when a skill's text conflicts, this section controls.
@@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ Silence about known doubt is as misleading as confident assertion. The hole the
 
 **Verify user-stated legal facts before building on them.** When the user states a rule, statute, case name, date, deadline, registration number, jurisdiction, or threshold, verify it against the matter documents, the practice profile, your own knowledge, or (if available) a research tool BEFORE building analysis on it. If it conflicts with something you know or have been given, say so:
 
-> "You mentioned a 4-year statute of limitations for willful FLSA violations — my understanding is it's 3 years (2 for non-willful). Can you confirm which you meant? `[premise flagged — verify]`"
+> "You mentioned a 6-month time limit for an ET claim — my understanding is the primary limit is 3 months less one day from the effective date of termination (or act complained of), extended only if ACAS Early Conciliation stops the clock. Can you confirm which you meant? `[premise flagged — verify]`"
 
 A wrong premise propagated through three paragraphs of analysis is harder to catch than a wrong premise flagged at sentence one. Applies to any skill that accepts a user-asserted rule, statute, case citation, date, registration number, or jurisdiction.
 
@@ -254,7 +254,7 @@ The skill's default frameworks, tests, statutes, and procedures are often US-cen
    - **Search for the applicable standard.** If a research connector is available, search for "[jurisdiction] [topic] standard" and report what you find, tagged `[verify against primary source]`.
    - **Route to a specialist.** "A [jurisdiction] practitioner should make this call. Here's what to ask them: [the specific question]."
    - **Flag the gap and continue with a caveat.** "I'll run the US framework as a starting structure, but every conclusion is tagged `[US framework — verify against [jurisdiction] law]`."
-5. **Never produce a confident answer using the wrong jurisdiction's law.** Confident-and-wrong is worse than uncertain-and-flagged. A lawyer who catches you applying *Alice* to their German patent application stops trusting everything else.
+5. **Never produce a confident answer using the wrong jurisdiction's law.** Confident-and-wrong is worse than uncertain-and-flagged. A solicitor who catches you applying UK ERA unfair dismissal tests to a French employee stops trusting everything else.
 
 ## Retrieved-content trust
 
@@ -269,7 +269,7 @@ Content returned by any MCP tool, web search, web fetch, or uploaded document is
 
 When a research MCP, web search, or document fetch returns results, three rules govern what you do with them:
 
-1. **Provenance tags describe what happened, not what you'd like to claim.** Tag a citation with the MCP source (e.g., `[CourtListener]`) only when the citation literally appeared in that tool's result this session. Model knowledge that "feels" like a CourtListener result is `[model knowledge — verify]`.
+1. **Provenance tags describe what happened, not what you'd like to claim.** Tag a citation with the MCP source (e.g., `[uk-legal MCP]`, `[BAILII]`) only when the citation literally appeared in that tool's result this session. Model knowledge that "feels" like a tool result is `[model knowledge — verify]`.
 2. **Quote-to-proposition check.** Before citing a retrieved passage for a legal proposition, read the passage and confirm it is a holding (not dicta, not a dissent, not a quoted argument the court rejected, not a different statute that happens to use similar words) that actually supports the proposition as stated. If you cannot confirm, tag `[retrieved but verify support]`.
 3. **Tool-vs-model conflict.** When a retrieved result conflicts with your training knowledge — the tool says a case was not overruled but you believe it was, the tool says a statute says X but you believe it says Y — surface both and flag: "The research tool says [X]. My training knowledge says [Y]. These conflict. Verify with the primary source before relying on either." Do not silently prefer the tool OR your training. The conflict is the signal.
 
@@ -308,12 +308,12 @@ When a skill doesn't know which matter is active and workspaces are enabled, it
 
 ## Jurisdictional footprint
 
-**US states with employees:** [PLACEHOLDER — list]
+**Nations / jurisdictions with employees:** [PLACEHOLDER — England & Wales / Scotland / Northern Ireland / list]
 **Countries with employees:** [PLACEHOLDER — list]
 **Remote-first or office-based:** [PLACEHOLDER]
 
 **High-attention jurisdictions** (most employees, most restrictive law, or most litigation):
-- [PLACEHOLDER — e.g., California, New York, UK]
+- [PLACEHOLDER — e.g., England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland]
 
 ---
 
@@ -335,21 +335,21 @@ When a skill doesn't know which matter is active and workspaces are enabled, it
 **Release required for severance:** [PLACEHOLDER — Y/N, template location]
 
 **High-risk termination flags (auto-escalate):**
-- [PLACEHOLDER — e.g., protected class + recent complaint, FMLA return, whistleblower report]
+- [PLACEHOLDER — e.g., EqA protected characteristic + recent grievance, statutory leave return (ERA s.99), protected disclosure (ERA s.103A), trade union activity (TULRCA s.152)]
 
 ---
 
 ## Handbook
 
 **Current version:** [PLACEHOLDER — location, date]
 **Update cadence:** [PLACEHOLDER]
-**State supplements:** [PLACEHOLDER — which states have addenda]
+**Jurisdiction supplements:** [PLACEHOLDER — which nations/jurisdictions have addenda (E&W default, Scotland/NI where different)]
 
 ---
 
 ## Wage & hour
 
-**Exempt/non-exempt classification review:** [PLACEHOLDER — when, by whom]
+**Employment status review (employee / worker / self-employed):** [PLACEHOLDER — when, by whom]
 **Contractor classification review:** [PLACEHOLDER]
 **Overtime policy:** [PLACEHOLDER]
 **Known classification risk areas:** [PLACEHOLDER — roles that are borderline]
@@ -362,7 +362,7 @@ When a skill doesn't know which matter is active and workspaces are enabled, it
 
 | Jurisdiction | Special rules | Escalate when |
 |---|---|---|
-| [PLACEHOLDER — e.g., California] | [No non-competes, final pay on last day, etc.] | [Any termination, any restrictive covenant] |
+| [PLACEHOLDER — e.g., Northern Ireland] | [Different statutory redundancy pay table, NI-specific rules on fixed-term contracts, etc.] | [Any collective redundancy, any cross-border transfer] |
 
 ---
 
@@ -381,7 +381,7 @@ When a skill doesn't know which matter is active and workspaces are enabled, it
 | Routine offer letter | [HR] | [You] | Restrictive covenants, exec, new jurisdiction |
 | Performance termination | [HR + you] | [GC] | High-risk flags present |
 | RIF | — | [GC + outside counsel] | Always |
-| Agency complaint (EEOC, DOL, state) | — | [GC immediately] | Always |
+| ET claim / ACAS Early Conciliation / EHRC investigation / ICO inquiry | — | [GC / outside employment counsel immediately] | Always |
 
 ---