---

name: output-executive-summary-first
description: Use when the audience is a lawyer, partner, or in-house client who needs the bottom line before the analysis — the BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front) format. Leads with a one-sentence conclusion, then a 3–5 bullet executive summary, then the full analysis. Apply as the default structure for substantive legal analysis responses and memos in a legal AI product.
license: MIT
metadata:
id: output.executive-summary-first
category: output
priority: P0
intent: [bluf, executive-summary, formatting, legal-memo, bottom-line-first]
related: [output-creac-structure, output-client-letter-style, output-docx-export-style, conversation-disclaimer]
source: Louis — HAQQ Legal AI (github.com/sboghossian/mini-claude-for-legal)
version: "1.0"

Executive Summary First (BLUF)

When to use this

Apply BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front) formatting when:

• The reader is a B2B professional — a lawyer, partner, in-house counsel, or business executive — who reads under time pressure.
• The output contains substantive legal analysis, a risk assessment, or a recommendation.
• The response is longer than 150 words and could confuse the reader about what they should actually do.
• The user's question has a clear answer that should not be buried.

BLUF is the default output structure for substantive legal AI responses. Exceptions (outputs that do not use BLUF):

• Short factual answers (one or two sentences) — a BLUF header would be disproportionate.
• Conversational turns that do not deliver analysis.
• Drafted documents (contracts, letters) — these have their own internal structure.

The pattern

**Bottom line:** [One-sentence conclusion — the answer to the user's question.]

**Summary**
- [Key point 1 — the most important finding or risk]
- [Key point 2]
- [Key point 3]
- [Key point 4 — optional]
- [Key point 5 — optional]

**Full analysis**
[The complete reasoning, organized by issue, section by section]

Rules for each section

Bottom line (one sentence)

• State the conclusion, not the question.
• Be specific: "The clause is likely unenforceable" is better than "There are enforceability concerns."
• Include the primary reason in the sentence if it fits naturally: "The clause is likely unenforceable because it is unlimited in geographic scope."
• Use calibrated language: "likely", "almost certainly", "should be enforceable if X" — not "definitely" or "will."
• Never start with "Based on the information provided..." — that is throat-clearing, not a conclusion.

Summary (3–5 bullets)

• Each bullet is one substantive point the reader will act on.
• No more than one line per bullet (two lines maximum for complex points).
• Order: most important finding first, then supporting points, then any caveats or recommended actions.
• Do not pad with "This is a complex area" or "Advice of local counsel is recommended" as a bullet — if required, those go in the disclaimer at the end.
• Avoid repeating the bottom line verbatim — the bullets should add substance, not restate.

Full analysis

• Use CREAC structure ([[output-creac-structure]]) for each legal issue within the analysis.
• Use clear headings for each issue.
• Citations go in the analysis, not in the summary bullets.
• Disclaimers go at the end of the full analysis, not at the beginning.

Example

Bottom line: The lease as drafted is likely unenforceable on three grounds; we recommend rejecting and counter-proposing.

Summary

• The 15-year term triggers Lebanese statutory tenancy protections that limit landlord rights to terminate — verify whether the statutory framework applies to commercial leases in this location.
• The rent escalation clause is open-ended (no cap or CPI linkage) — this creates unpredictable cost exposure over the lease term.
• The absolute subletting prohibition (no subletting without landlord consent for any reason) is uncommonly strict and may impede future operational flexibility.
• The service charge methodology is not stated — the tenant has no visibility into future service charge levels.
• Governing law and forum (Beirut courts) is favorable for the tenant.

Full analysis

[Proceeds with section-by-section CREAC for each of the five issues above...]

What not to do

Anti-pattern	Why it's wrong
Burying the conclusion at the end	The reader may not get there, or may misread the analysis as more ambiguous than it is
Opening with disclaimers	Disclaimers go at the end; opening with them signals insecurity and buries the value
Repeating the user's question back verbatim	The user knows what they asked; starting by paraphrasing their question wastes their time
Opening with "Based on the information provided..."	Throat-clearing; every legal analysis is based on the information provided
Padding the summary bullets with non-substantive points	Every bullet should contain a finding that would change the reader's decision if removed
Using "complex area of law" as a substitute for analysis	Acknowledge complexity, but then do the analysis anyway

Paired with

• [[output-creac-structure]]: the structure used within the "Full analysis" section.
• [[output-client-letter-style]]: when the BLUF output is formatted as a formal client letter, the Bottom line becomes the opening paragraph and the Summary becomes the numbered recommendations.
• [[output-docx-export-style]]: when the BLUF output is exported to DOCX, the Bottom line becomes a highlighted paragraph (e.g., in a text box or bold format) at the top of the document.

Related skills

• [[output-creac-structure]] — the analytical structure that follows the BLUF header
• [[output-client-letter-style]] — letter format that incorporates BLUF as the opening
• [[output-docx-export-style]] — document export that preserves BLUF formatting
• [[conversation-disclaimer]] — where disclaimers belong (end, not beginning)