customize

name customize description Guided customization of your AI governance practice profile — change one thing without re-running the whole cold-start interview. Adjust risk posture, escalation contacts, use-case registry entries, vendor AI positions, AI policy commitments, impact-assessment house style, or matter workspace paths. Use when the user says "change my [thing]", "update my profile", "edit my config", "tune my playbook", or "customize". argument-hint [section name, or describe what you want to change] /customize When this runs The user typed /ai-governance-legal:customize . They want to change something in their practice profile — a risk posture, an escalation contact, a playbook position, a jurisdiction, an output format — without re-running the whole cold-start interview and without hand-editing YAML. What to do Read the config. Read ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/ai-governance-legal/CLAUDE.md (and ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/company-profile.md one level up). If the plugin config does not exist or still contains [PLACEHOLDER] values, say: You haven't run setup yet. Run /ai-governance-legal:cold-start-interview first — customize is for adjusting a profile you already have. Show the customizable map. List what's in the profile, grouped, with a one-line summary of the current value: Company / who you are — name, industry, jurisdictions, stage, practice setting (shared across all 12 plugins — changes flow through company-profile.md ) Regulatory footprint — EU AI Act, state AI laws, sector regulators in scope Risk posture — conservative / middle / aggressive, what each means for triage and AIA output People — governance team, AI risk owner, escalation chain, approvers Use case registry — approved / conditional / never entries, and conditions attached to each AI system inventory — per-system role (provider / deployer / etc.) and tier under the EU AI Act. Run /ai-governance-legal:ai-inventory for the dedicated editor. Vendor AI governance — training-on-data, liability, model-change notice, and other positions in your vendor AI playbook AI policy commitments — the public or internal commitments your AI policy has made, that the plugin cross-checks against Impact assessment house style — AIA section order, risk scoring format, stakeholder framing Workflow — intake path, output format, matter workspace paths, review cadence for the policy monitor Integrations — what's connected (Slack, document storage, scheduled-tasks), what falls back Ask what they want to change. What would you like to adjust? Pick a section, or describe the change in your own words. Make the change. Show the current value, ask for the new value, explain what changes downstream, confirm, write it to the config. Examples of downstream explanation: Risk posture middle → conservative: "I'll flag more use cases as conditional rather than approved, surface more AIA follow-ups, and recommend more conservative vendor AI redlines." Adding an escalation contact: "Every skill that routes escalations ( /use-case-triage , /vendor-ai-review , /reg-gap-analysis ) will now include this contact on the relevant risk bands." New use case registry entry: " /use-case-triage will match against this entry on its next run. Existing AIAs aren't rewritten — re-run them if you want the new posture reflected." For shared-profile changes (company name, industry, jurisdictions, practice setting, stage): write to ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/company-profile.md and note: This change affects all 12 plugins — any plugin that reads your jurisdiction footprint now sees [new value]. Close. Done. Your next output will reflect the change. Anything else? You can run /ai-governance-legal:customize anytime. Guardrails Never delete a section. If the user wants to "remove" something, set it to [Not configured] and explain what that means for the plugin's behavior. ("Removing your escalation chain means /use-case-triage will flag escalation-worthy items but won't route them to a specific person.") Flag internal inconsistency. If the change would make the profile inconsistent (e.g., risk posture aggressive + escalation "everything goes to the GC"; or "EU AI Act in scope" + "no systems flagged for the EU"), flag the tension and ask which one they want. Flag guardrail degradation. If the user asks to turn off a guardrail ("stop adding the [review] flag," "drop the citations warning," "skip the privilege header"), explain what the guardrail protects against and confirm they understand the trade-off. Most guardrails are adjustable — a few are structural: The [review] flag mechanism (tells the user when legal judgment is needed rather than a confident wrong answer) — load-bearing, don't remove. Source attribution tags on retrieved content — load-bearing, don't remove. [verify] tags on cited statutes/regulations — load-bearing, don't remove. One change at a time. Don't re-ask the whole interview. If the user wants multiple changes, handle them sequentially and confirm each before moving on.