agentleFS
alebgl77alebgl77/claude-inc/skills/triage-nda/SKILL.md

triage-nda

Skill21 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Ten-minute NDA triage — classifies an incoming NDA as GREEN (sign under standard delegation), YELLOW (targeted fixes, listed), or RED (full review). Screens mutuality, term and survival, definition breadth, embedded non-solicits or non-competes, missing standard carve-outs, residuals clauses, and IP assignment smuggling. Use when the user says 'can I sign this NDA', 'quick look at this NDA', or forwards any confidentiality agreement.

2 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Check term and survival: an agreement term of 1-3 years and confidentiality survival of 2-5 years are standard.

    line 24
  2. Distinctive:

    Check definition breadth: "Confidential Information" should be bounded — marked, or reasonably understood as confidential.

    line 25
  3. Distinctive:

    Verify the four standard carve-outs: public knowledge, prior possession, independent development, compelled disclosure (with notice where …

    line 27

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Triage NDA — NDA Triage

"Fast NDA review"

Built for speed: seven screens, one verdict, ten minutes. Works on pasted NDA text or a file.

When to use

  • "Can I just sign this NDA?" — the speed call
  • "Sales needs this countersigned today" — deal-velocity triage
  • "Is this NDA actually mutual?" — direction check
  • Screening a batch of inbound NDAs before a partner event
  • Confidentiality terms embedded in a larger agreement belong to review-contract, not here

Workflow

  1. Ingest the NDA (pasted text or file). Confirm it is a standalone NDA; note parties, stated purpose, and our disclosure direction (mostly disclosing, mostly receiving, or both).
  2. Screen mutuality: obligations must run both ways if information does. One-way obligations against us while we disclose is RED territory.
  3. Check term and survival: an agreement term of 1-3 years and confidentiality survival of 2-5 years are standard; indefinite survival passes only for trade secrets.
  4. Check definition breadth: "Confidential Information" should be bounded — marked, or reasonably understood as confidential. Definitions sweeping in all business contacts or "any information disclosed by any means at any time" get flagged.
  5. Hunt embedded landmines: non-solicit, non-compete, exclusivity, or standstill clauses do not belong in an NDA — any one of them forces RED.
  6. Verify the four standard carve-outs: public knowledge, prior possession, independent development, compelled disclosure (with notice where lawful). Each missing carve-out is a YELLOW fix with insert language.
  7. Screen residuals and IP: a residuals clause broad enough to gut confidentiality is RED; any assignment of IP, feedback, or derivatives smuggled into an NDA is RED.
  8. Classify and deliver: GREEN — sign under standard delegation; YELLOW — apply the listed fixes, then sign; RED — route to full review with reasons quoted.

Output format

NDA TRIAGE — <counterparty> — <date>
Direction: <mutual / we disclose / we receive>   Purpose: <one line>

VERDICT: <GREEN — sign under standard delegation | YELLOW — fix, then sign | RED — full review>

SCREENS
| Check                              | Result | Note              |
|------------------------------------|--------|-------------------|
| Mutuality                          | PASS   |                   |
| Term & survival                    | FLAG   | <what and why>    |
| Definition breadth                 | PASS   |                   |
| Embedded non-solicit / non-compete | PASS   |                   |
| Standard carve-outs (4)            | FLAG   | missing: <which>  |
| Residuals clause                   | PASS   | none present      |
| IP assignment smuggling            | PASS   | none present      |

FIXES (YELLOW verdicts)
1. <clause> — Quote: "<verbatim>" → Insert: "<replacement language>"
2. <clause> — Quote: "<verbatim>" → Insert: "<replacement language>"

RED REASONS (RED verdicts)
- <finding> — Quote: "<verbatim>" — why it forces full review

*Issue-spotting support, not legal advice — engage counsel for binding decisions.*

Quality bar

  • Verdict is exactly one of GREEN / YELLOW / RED — no hedging
  • All seven screens run and shown, passes included
  • Every FLAG quotes the offending text verbatim
  • Every YELLOW fix ships insert language — a YELLOW without fixes is a RED
  • Embedded non-solicit, non-compete, exclusivity, or standstill always forces RED
  • Triage completes on the NDA text alone, no outside context required

Example

Invocation: "BD forwarded this mutual NDA from Acme — okay to sign?" (NDA pasted)

Produces: Verdict YELLOW. Carve-outs missing independent development (insert provided); survival is seven years ("the obligations herein shall survive for seven (7) years") redlined to three; the other five screens pass. Two paste-ready fixes — sign under standard delegation once applied.

Issue-spotting support, not legal advice — engage counsel for binding decisions.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.