worker-classification

/worker-classification

Run the applicable employment relationship determination standards and identify where the proposed arrangement does not match the intended structure. Prospective analysis only — for an existing employment relationship, consult a lawyer.

Instructions

Load ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal-zh/employment-legal/CLAUDE.md → jurisdiction, escalation table.
Run the following complete workflow.
If the lawyer provides detailed information in advance, extract what is already available and ask only about the gaps. Do not repeatedly ask for information already provided.

Examples

/employment-legal:worker-classification
我们想请一位数据分析师，6个月，在北京办公室工作，使用我们的工具，
嵌入在我们的分析团队里。

/employment-legal:worker-classification
我们的招聘顾问劳务协议是否可行？她只为我们工作，自己安排时间，
用自己的笔记本电脑，按每成功推荐一人收取项目费。

/employment-legal:worker-classification
（技能将询问详情）

Matter context

Matter context. Check the practice-level CLAUDE.md for ## Matter workspaces. If Enabled is ✗(the default for legal users), skip this paragraph — the skill uses practice-level context and the matter mechanism is not visible. If it is 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 to obtain matter-specific context and overrides. Write output to the matter folder. Unless Cross-matter context is on, do not read files from other matters.

Purpose

The most expensive determination decision is the one no one consciously makes. Someone describes their idea ("a service worker"), the employment begins, and two years later the facts look like an employment relationship. This skill runs the applicable determination standards against the proposed arrangement before the arrangement begins — and tells you when what you have described does not match the intended structure.

This skill teaches a reasoning model; it does not state the law. Every formulation of a determination standard, legal citation, threshold, and exception must come from current research for the jurisdiction with authority.

Hard gate for prospective analysis only — run before information gathering

This skill analyzes a proposed employment arrangement that has not yet begun. Before any substantive information gathering (Step 1), ask:

Has this work already begun? Is the person currently already performing the work, or have they already worked under this arrangement for any period of time (whether days, weeks, months, or years)?

If the answer is yes — the employment relationship already exists, regardless of form and regardless of duration —stop. Do not proceed to Step 1 information gathering. Analyzing an existing relationship is not planning work; it is a liability assessment with remedial implications: back pay (overtime pay, unused annual leave pay), unpaid social insurance contributions, unpaid benefits, potential administrative fines, and follow-on risks arising from the ongoing employment. That analysis should be conducted under lawyer leadership and combined with a remediation plan.

Output the following and wait for a response:

Out of scope — existing employment relationship.

This skill is intended to analyzenot yet begunemployment arrangements, allowing the structured approach of identifying options to guide the contract and operations. What you are describing is an arrangement that already exists. Retrospectively analyzing an existing relationship is a different type of work: reclassification risk assessment, back pay risk, social insurance contribution shortfall risk, penalty risk, benefits risk, and prospective structural adjustments. This work should be led by a lawyer, and it is advisable to also consult an external employment lawyer.

Recommended next step: escalate according to the escalation table in your configuration (for retrospective reclassification, typically routed to the legal director + external employment lawyer). I have flagged this escalation in the system.

If you still want to proceed with the prospective analysis for planning purposes, say "continue"—but please understand:

The output is not a remediation plan and should not be treated as one.

The output does not calculate back pay, penalties, or social insurance risk for periods that have already occurred.

The output does not replace the reclassification risk assessment actually required for this factual situation.

The output will carry a prominent banner reflecting this scope mismatch, and the threshold for subsequent action will require lawyer confirmation before the analysis is considered reliable.

Only say "continue" if you are using this skill for prospective planning (for example, "If we were to restructure this today, how should we think about it?") and you have made separate arrangements for the remediation issues.

Only pass this threshold after receiving an explicit "continue" (or equivalent user instruction). A hesitant "I think so" does not count—prompt again. If the user continues, prefix all outputs of this skill in this session with this banner:

⚠️ 范围不匹配——超出范围的使用
本技能分析前瞻性用工安排。此处的安排已经存在。此输出是用户要求的前瞻性分析，
仅用于规划目的——不是补救方案，不计算已有的补发工资/罚款/社保风险，不替代该
事实情形所需的重新认定风险评估。补救问题已标记为按配置升级表中的路径升级给律师。

If the answer to "Has the work already started?" is no (the employment relationship is indeed prospective and has not yet begun), proceed to Load Context.

Load Context

Read ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal-zh/employment-legal/CLAUDE.md → jurisdiction, any existing classification history or prior dispute records, the escalation table, and any internal employment policies recorded by the team.

Output Title

From ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal-zh/employment-legal/CLAUDE.md → ## Outputs preset work product title (varies depending on the user role—see ## Who's using this）。

Workflow

Step 1—Information Gathering

Ask all of the following at once. Do not ask them one by one. Briefly explain why the question is being asked—lawyers answer better when they understand what the issue is meant to test.

To run the correct employment relationship classification test, I need to understand the proposed arrangement in detail. Please answer as many of the following questions as possible—the more complete the picture, the more accurate the analysis:

Work Content

What does the person actually do every day?

Is the work part of the company's core business, or is it auxiliary work? (for example: a software engineer at a software company = core; an IT service staff member at a law firm = auxiliary)

Is this a limited project with a clear end date, or ongoing work with no fixed term?

How specialized are the skills? Does the person have expertise that your team does not have?

Management Control

Who determines their working hours and schedule—they themselves or your side?

Where will they work—your premises, a location they arrange themselves, or either?

Do you direct how they perform the work (methods, processes, sequence), or do you only require the final result?

Will they manage any of your employees?

Economic Dependence

How is compensation calculated—by the hour, by the day, or as a fixed project fee?

Do you provide equipment, tools, or software, or do they use their own?

Do they work for other companies, or only for this arrangement?

Do they bear any business risk—can they earn more than the agreed fee, or can they lose money in this arrangement?

Do they already have their own business entity (limited liability company, sole proprietorship, etc.)?

Arrangement Method

How do you want to structure this arrangement—direct labor agreement, labor dispatch, or business outsourcing (company-to-company)?

If labor dispatch: who pays the worker—the dispatch company or you? Who is responsible for day-to-day management?

Is there a written contract? Do you have a template?

Roughly how long will the arrangement last—weeks, months, more than a year?

Do they perform similar work alongside your employees?

Jurisdiction

Where will the person actually provide labor?

Wait for a reply before continuing. If the lawyer cannot answer some questions, record the gaps—these will affect the analysis.

Step 2—Determine the applicable recognition criteria

Research the applicable recognition criteria before continuing. Based on the jurisdiction and issues identified in information gathering, research the currently effective criteria for recognizing labor relations. Under Chinese law, the core basis for recognizing labor relations is:

Circular on Matters Concerning the Establishment of Labor Relations (Lao She Bu Fa [2005] No. 12) [法条原文]: If an employer hires a worker without concluding a written labor contract, but the following circumstances are simultaneously present, a labor relationship is established: (1) The employer and the worker meet the subject qualification requirements stipulated by laws and regulations; (2) The various labor rules and regulations formulated by the employer in accordance with law apply to the worker, the worker is subject to the employer's labor management, and engages in remunerated labor arranged by the employer; (3) The labor provided by the worker is a component part of the employer's business.

Internet platform employment: refer to the Guiding Opinions on Safeguarding the Labor Security Rights and Interests of Workers in New Employment Forms (Ren She Bu Fa [2021] No. 56)[法条原文], which distinguishes three categories: "labor relationship—circumstances not fully conforming to a labor relationship—individual independent operation relying on the platform".

Distinguish labor relationships from service relationships: service relationships are governed by the Contract Part of the Civil Code and are not regulated by the Labor Contract Law.[法条原文] Distinguish labor relationships from work-for-hire relationships: work-for-hire relationships are governed by Article 770 et seq. of the Civil Code (contracts for work), and the commissioning party does not bear the employer's obligations under labor law.[法条原文]

If ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal-zh/employment-legal/CLAUDE.md records the company's internal recognition policy, apply that policy first, and identify any conflicts with the research criteria.

Do not supplement on your own. If a query to the configured legal research tool returns zero results or very few results, report what was found and stop. Do not fill gaps from web searches or model knowledge without asking. Say: "The search returned [N] results from [tool]. Coverage of [jurisdiction/issue/standard] appears thin. Options: (1) broaden the search query, (2) try another research tool, (3) search the web—results will be marked[联网检索——需复核], should be verified before reliance, (4) mark as unverified and stop. Which do you want to choose?" It is for the lawyer to decide whether to accept lower-credibility sources.

Source labeling. For each citation — each determination standard, statutory provision, normative document, or case — indicate the source:[yuandian检索]for citations retrieved via MCP;[联网检索——需复核]for web search citations;[模型知识——需验证]for citations from model knowledge recall;[用户提供]for citations provided by the lawyer. Mark需验证citations that carry a high risk of fabrication and should be verified first. Do not delete or compress the markings.

Step 3 — Apply the determination standards to the facts

For each standard identified in Step 2, apply it to the information-gathering facts. Score item by item — do not generalize. The lawyer needs to see which factors are fine and which are problematic.

Use the following structure, butfactorsshould be populated from the standards identified in the research, not from this document:

认定标准：[标准名称，根据研究]
适用问题：[该标准判断什么——劳动关系/劳务关系/承揽关系]
来源：[法规/文件的具位置]
时效：[核实日期]

| 要素/要件 | 收集的事实 | 倾向/通过-不通过 |
|---|---|---|
| [研究标准中的要素1] | [来自信息收集] | [倾向或通过/不通过] |
| [要素2] | [来自信息收集] | [倾向或通过/不通过] |
| ...                        |                |                   |

标准结构：
[该标准如何权衡各要素——例如，三要素必须同时满足才能成立劳动关系，
或某一要素权重较大。根据研究陈述，而非根据记忆。]

该标准下的结论：
[支持劳动关系认定 / 不支持劳动关系认定 / 要素X不满足 / 不确定——存在争议的要素]

Repeat for each applicable standard.

Note on disputed elements. Some determination elements are highly disputed in judicial practice and highly fact-dependent. Clearly identify the disputed elements — do not obscure them. The existence of a standard does not mean its application to these facts is certain; flag elements that require the lawyer's judgment, or elements that have recently given rise to litigation in that jurisdiction.

Step 4 — Identify and flag gaps

Conclusion

Based on the results of the standard analysis, state the most accurate nature of the employment relationship for the proposed arrangement:

Labor relationship (sign a labor contract): the facts support constituting a labor relationship under one or more applicable standards.
Service relationship (sign a service agreement): the facts support constituting a service relationship under all applicable standards.
Dispatch employment: the worker is under the dispatch company's name; the actual employer is the client — if the actual employer exercises day-to-day management, there is a risk of mixed employment/factual labor relationship.
Business outsourcing (company to company): a company-to-company arrangement; the worker is employed by the outsourcing company — the clearest structure if the facts support it.
Uncertain / borderline case: the facts cut both ways under one or more standards — state which standard is the problem and why.

If the standards give different answers on different issues (e.g., from a social insurance perspective it can be argued as a service relationship, but from a labor remuneration perspective it is determined to be a labor relationship), state this clearly and identify the controlling issue and jurisdiction.

Gap analysis

This is the most important output. Compare the intended structure with what the facts actually support:

预定结构：[他们说的想要什么]
事实指向：[研究标准显示的实际上是什么]

差距——安排不匹配预定结构之处：
🔴 [要素]：[描述的内容]与[预定分类]冲突，
   因为[具体研究标准语言 + 引用]。若安排按描述进行，这是重大认定风险。
🟡 [要素]：[描述的内容]在[标准]下是较弱点。单独不构成否定，
   但与其他因素结合增加风险。
✅ [要素]：支持[预定分类]。无问题。

Escalation triggers

If any of the following occurs (or any team-specific trigger recorded in the configuration), escalate per CLAUE.md:

The proposed work is the company's core business and the standards are strict — do not proceed without lawyer review.
The configuration notes a prior determination dispute or administrative penalty record — raise the standard of review.
The worker will manage employees or have significant budget authority.
The arrangement is expected to exceed 12 months and has no clear project termination point.
Any disputed element whose outcome would change the conclusion.

Step 5 — Output

Research connector pre-check. Before producing the analysis, check whether this session can connect to legal research tools — yuandian MCP or any other configured research tools. Collect the results into the review notes; if no connector returns results in step 2, record this in the **Sources:** line. Keep each source label inline. Do not display a separate banner above the output.

Jurisdiction assumptions. This analysis applies the jurisdiction identified in information gathering. The rules for determining labor relations may differ in practice across provinces, and the determination logic may differ depending on the type of issue (social insurance, labor remuneration, work-related injury insurance). If the work will be performed in a jurisdiction not yet analyzed, or if new determination issues are added later, this analysis may not apply.

[工作成果标题——根据插件配置 ## Outputs——因角色不同；见 `## Who's using this`]

## 劳动关系认定分析
**拟议安排：** [他们描述的内容]
**管辖地：** [省份/直辖市]
**需要解决的问题：** [社保/工资/工伤/解除]
**适用标准：** [列出，每项附引用和核实时效]

---

### 底线结论

[可以继续 / 需先调整X / 停止——一句话说明理由]

---

### 认定结论

**最匹配的分类：** [劳动关系 / 劳务关系 / 派遣 / 外包 / 不确定]

[一段用通俗语言总结——分析结果与所引来源的关联。]

---

### 标准分析结果

#### [标准名称——根据研究]
适用问题：[社保缴纳 / 劳动报酬 / 工伤保险] | 来源：[法条原文引用] | 时效：[核实日期]
[步骤3的评分表]
**结论：** [支持劳动关系 / 不支持劳动关系 / 要素X不满足 / 混合]

#### [其他研究标准——重复上述内容]

---

### 差距分析

[按步骤4结构标识——🔴 重大风险，🟡 较弱点，✅ 无问题因素]

---

### 升级

[无需 | 在继续前升级至[名称]——[理由]]

---

### 下一步

[如劳动关系成立：认定确认为劳动关系——运行 `/employment-legal:hiring-review` 审查录用通知书、竞业限制条款和管辖地特定要求。]
[如劳务关系成立：认定为劳务关系——在用工开始前确保书面协议反映支持劳务关系的要素。]
[如存在差距：在使用劳务关系结构前解决以下问题：[列出]]
[如派遣/外包为更优选择：考虑以[派遣/外包]重构——在此事实模式下为何更优。]
[如需升级：在律师就[具体问题]进行审查前不继续。]

Action threshold (determining the employment relationship)

Before making a final recommendation that "this can be handled as a service relationship/labor relationship/dispatch/outsourcing": Read ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal-zh/employment-legal/CLAUDE.md in ## Who's using this. If the role isnon-lawyer：

Determining the employment relationship has legal consequences — an incorrect determination may expose the enterprise to the risk of retroactive social insurance contributions, payment of overtime pay and unused annual leave wages, liability for work-related injury insurance, and administrative penalties. Have you reviewed this determination with a lawyer? If reviewed, continue. If not reviewed, the following is a brief to take to a lawyer:

Employment arrangement (work, management, economic subordination, structure) as described

Which determination criteria were applied

Criterion-by-criterion analysis results, statutory citations, and limitation periods

Gap analysis (🔴 / 🟡 / ✅), highlighting problematic elements

Unresolved issues and undetermined matters

Possible risks (the determination theory under which this arrangement is most likely to fail; if there are prior administrative penalties/disputes, add them)

Questions to ask a lawyer (whether this can be handled as a service relationship; whether restructuring through dispatch or outsourcing can eliminate the risk; which contract clauses are needed to support the determination)

If you need to find a lawyer: contact your local lawyers association or call the 12348 legal aid hotline for a referral.

Do not output a final "feasible"/"use this classification" conclusion until explicit confirmation is received. Output marked as a draft for lawyer review is permitted.

What this skill does not do

Analyze existing relationships — prospective analysis only.
Draft service agreements or outsourcing service contracts.
Provide remedial advice for incorrect determinations that have already occurred.
State the law of any jurisdiction on its own — every criterion, element, and exception must come from verified current research.
Replace external lawyer opinions in borderline cases — situations with strict criteria, highly disputed elements, or prior administrative penalties should all receive human review before employment begins.

Close with the next-step decision tree

Close with the next-step decision tree in CLAUDE.md ## Outputs . Customize the options based on what this skill just produced — the five default branches (draft X, escalate, get more facts, wait and see, other options) are a starting point, not locked-in items. The decision tree itself is the output; the lawyer chooses.