Evidence the run may read
- Prior and current policy text
- Approved obligation map
- Affected process and document inventory
production blueprint · legal
Legal policy change impact review agent blueprint.
Compare approved policy versions and map changed obligations to owners, documents, and open legal questions.
Search intent: AI agent for legal policy impact analysis
Published by a2a cloudProduct-source methodology →
01 · the contract
Start from a bounded job, not a blank chat box.
trigger
An external or internal legal policy source changes.
owner
qualified legal reviewer
agent stops at
Qualified counsel validates interpretation and approves required action.
KPI · decrease
unassigned legal change actions (items). Count counsel-approved actions without an accountable owner.
outputs
Artifacts the run must produce
- Semantic change summary
- Affected obligation and owner map
- Counsel question list
02 · topology
Small specialists. Named handoffs. One accountable decision.
Each stage produces an artifact another stage can inspect. The final node is a person, not an autonomous write to an external system.
- 01
intake
Validate and normalize the legal policy change impact review inputs.
- 02
policy differ
Produce the semantic change summary.
- 03
obligation mapper
Produce the affected obligation and owner map.
- 04
legal reviewer
Challenge the legal policy change impact review result and prepare an approval packet.
- 05
qualified legal reviewer
Qualified counsel validates interpretation and approves required action.
intake→ validated input packet →policy-differ
policy-differ→ Semantic change summary →obligation-mapper
obligation-mapper→ Affected obligation and owner map →legal-reviewer
legal-reviewer→ approval packet with evidence references →human-approver
03 · authority
Grant the run only what this case needs.
Source material is read-only. Drafts land in a case-specific output path. Tools may read or propose; the human gate owns the external write.
case inputs
workspace/legal/policy-change-impact-review/inputs/**Read only the evidence attached to this workflow instance.
case outputs
workspace/legal/policy-change-impact-review/outputs/**Write drafts and evidence artifacts without modifying source records.
approved tools
legal:policy-change-impact-review:read-or-proposeInvoke only tools explicitly granted for this run; external writes remain gated.
04 · implementation
A private, bounded starting manifest.
The blueprint starts private, caps its DAG, disables replanning, and exposes no public endpoint. Add only the tools and data adapters this workflow has approved.
a2a.yamlsafe starting point
name: legal-policy-change-impact-review
version: 0.1.0
entrypoint: agent:BlueprintAgent
expose:
public: false
composition:
planning: deterministic_dag
max_nodes: 6
max_parallel: 1
max_replans: 005 · acceptance test
Pass only with evidence.
- 01
Evidence traceability
Every material conclusion cites an input artifact or a scoped tool result from this run.
- 02
The output separates textual change, operational impact hypothesis, and counsel determination.
The output separates textual change, operational impact hypothesis, and counsel determination.
- 03
Approval boundary
The run stops at a proposal and records the human decision before any external side effect.
failure containment
Stop small. Preserve the evidence.
The authoritative version, effective date, applicability, or jurisdiction is unclear.
Containment: Return a partial result with unresolved items; do not broaden scope or perform an external write.
Operator: Attach the missing evidence, narrow the brief, or explicitly approve a new scoped run.
A required input or tool grant is unavailable.
Containment: Stop the affected branch and preserve completed artifacts in the case output workspace.
Operator: Grant only the missing resource or continue with that branch marked out of scope.
06 · proof
Sign the run facts. Keep money in the billing ledger.
Current platform receipts sign caller identity or classification, skill, bounded input evidence, verified grant IDs when present, outcome or result preview, and timing. Optional file, tool, artifact, handoff, evaluation, and review fields require separate instrumentation and are not populated by default. Price, fees, payouts, and later human approvals remain separate platform records.
The example uses only fields populated by the current platform sealing paths. It is illustrative, not a record of a real customer run.
ExecutionReceipt · selected fieldsEd25519 token
{
"receipt_id": "rcpt_01J...",
"schema_version": 1,
"agent_name": "legal-policy-change-impact-review",
"caller": "user:workflow-owner",
"task_id": "case_policy_change_impact_review",
"skill_name": "policy_change_impact_review",
"input_hash": "4d7c...9a2f",
"grant_ids": [
"grt_case_inputs",
"grt_tool_propose"
],
"status": "ok",
"result_preview": "Output prepared: Semantic change summary. Human decision remains separate.",
"elapsed_ms": 4218
}related blueprints
Keep the operating model consistent.
Legal
Contract intake triage
Normalize a contract request, identify document and owner gaps, and route it under the approved legal intake policy.
Legal
NDA deviation review
Compare an NDA with an approved template and prepare a clause-level deviation packet for counsel.
Legal
Contract clause extraction
Extract specified clauses and attributes with source locations and confidence for a legal reviewer to verify.
put the pattern to work
Start private. Scope the authority. Require the decision.
Deploy the workflow as a bounded internal agent, verify its outputs and the receipt fields actually emitted, then expand only the scopes your acceptance test proves it needs.