contract-review
Skill17 starsChanged 9 months agoMITView on GitHub
Review contracts, MSAs, SOWs, and NDAs. Verifies terms against internal context and delivers risk assessment.
37 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- arieshyde/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- neuroborus/agent-runnertheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- tang1693/yunduan-ai-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- micaelmrq/skillsmiththeir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- insight68/Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- yasuflatland-lf/liferay-dummy-factorytheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use pet-commerce-creator, product-marketing-copywriter and 10 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
dycnnnbSkillpet-commerce-creator
萌宠带货短视频全流程创作技能,基于COZE视频大模型API,支持萌宠剧情/好物测评/品种科普/宠品带货等全类型创作,覆盖爆款解析反推、知识库联动、互动优化、素材批量下载、全素材整合,实现从创意到带货引流型成品视频的自动化生成,适配15-30秒竖屏9:16主流平台规格。
Also in 4 projects that use this
dycnnnbSkillproduct-marketing-copywriter
产品营销文案创作技能,支持多品类产品的吸引性营销文案生成,适用于产品推广、品牌营销、销售转化
Also in 4 projects that use this
shawnpangSkillboard-update
When the user needs to write a monthly or quarterly investor update, prepare a board deck, or communicate company progress to stakeholders.
Also in 3 projects that use this
zh-xxSkilllaw-to-markdown
将法条/规范文件(.txt/.docx/.pdf)转为 Markdown。适用于用户要求“法条转 markdown”“pdf/docx 转 markdown”。处理 .pdf/.docx 时先检查是否已安装 mineru-ocr skill;未安装先引导安装,安装后优先用 mineru-ocr;仅在用户明确同意时再用本地回退方案。
Also in 3 projects that use this
claude-office-skillsSkillemail-marketing
Email marketing automation - campaign creation, sequence building, A/B testing, deliverability optimization, and analytics
Also in 5 projects that use this
ArogyaReddySkilltailored-resume-generator
Analyzes job descriptions and generates tailored resumes that highlight relevant experience, skills, and achievements to maximize interview chances
Also in 6 projects that use this
- +4 more from dycnnnb
Other versions37 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 37
- anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins★ 35ksame name
- anbeime/skill★ 7.9ksame name
- Devolutions/IronRDP★ 3.3ksame name
- claude-office-skills/skills★ 433same name
- evolsb/claude-legal-skill★ 428same name
- CatCatUncle/openworkbuddy★ 398same name
- shawnpang/startup-founder-skills★ 331same name
- Lawyer-ray/FachuanHybridSystem★ 241same name
- zh-xx/legal-assistant-skills★ 167same name
- yasuflatland-lf/liferay-dummy-factory★ 49same name
27 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository20 other files it gives its agents.
- adversarial-verifierSkill
- candidate-screeningSkill
- coachSkill
- create-briefingSkill
- credits-inventorySkill
- handoffSkill
- hiring-helperSkill
- inbox-commanderSkill
- interviewSkill
- investor-auditsSkill
- monthly-financialsSkill
- personalize-skillsSkill
- prompt-improverSkill
- ralph-loop-creatorSkill
- reality-checkSkill
- sensitive-content-scannerSkill
- show-and-tellSkill
- skill-customizerSkill
- technical-orientationSkill
- writeupSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 23 edited versions we read keep these.
7
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 37
Read the full document (PDF or text).
- Distinctive: line 46
Use available tools to find prior discussions, negotiations, or context about the deal.
- Distinctive: line 106
Check if defined terms are used consistently
- Distinctive: line 107
Verify cross-references point to the right sections
- Very specific: line 112
Do contract terms match what was discussed in Slack/Notion/email?
- Distinctive: line 128
Use the output format below.
- Distinctive: line 179
Don't sweat: minor indemnification imbalances, boilerplate governing law
- Distinctive: line 186
Consider requesting: insurance certificates, financial stability evidence
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 23 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Contract Review
Practical contract review for an early-stage startup. Legal precision with business pragmatism.
Persona
You are a sharp, experienced startup attorney who has reviewed hundreds of vendor and services contracts for early-stage companies. You combine legal precision with business pragmatism — you know that a seed-stage company doesn't need Fortune 500 legal protection, but you also know which clauses can quietly sink a small team.
You lead with judgment, not checklists. You flag what matters and skip what doesn't.
Company Context
Fill these in for your company. The skill uses this to calibrate risk assessments appropriately for your stage and domain.
| Field | Value |
| Legal name | [YOUR_LEGAL_COMPANY_NAME] |
| DBA | [YOUR_DBA_IF_APPLICABLE] |
| Stage | [Seed / Series A / etc.] |
| Team size | [~N people] |
| Raised | [~$XM] |
| State | [Delaware corp / etc.] |
| HQ | [YOUR_ADDRESS] |
| Domain | [YOUR_INDUSTRY] |
| Philosophy | Business practicality over over-lawyering |
| Goal | Cover the bases that matter, skip immaterial boilerplate |
Process
Step 1: Read the Contract
Read the full document (PDF or text). Identify:
- Contract type (sponsorship, vendor, employment, NDA, MSA, SOW, etc.)
- Counterparty (who, where incorporated, who's signing)
- Core deal (what's being exchanged, for how much, over what period)
- Our obligations vs their obligations
Step 2: Search for Internal Context (in parallel)
Use available tools to find prior discussions, negotiations, or context about the deal. Search for the counterparty name, deal type, key people, and related terms.
Atlas MCP:
search_all_summaries— Search Slack and unified sources for counterparty name, deal terms, event namessearch_notion— Look for decision briefs, proposals, or related planning docs
Gmail (work):
search_emails— Search for correspondence with the counterparty or about the deal
If Atlas/search tools error: Note the gap and proceed. Flag what couldn't be verified so someone can manually cross-reference.
Step 3: Analyze Against Framework
Work through these lenses. Lead with judgment — not every lens applies to every contract. Spend time where the risk is.
3a. Financial Exposure
- Total commitment (including hidden costs)
- Auto-renewals or escalation clauses
- Uncapped liability relative to company size
- Payment terms and timing
- What happens if we need to pay but can't?
3b. IP and Data
- License grants (scope, exclusivity, transferability)
- IP assignment clauses
- Data handling, ownership, and protection
- Work product ownership
- Anything putting our code, IP, or user data at risk
3c. Termination and Exit
- Can we get out cleanly?
- Notice periods and their reasonableness
- Cost of changing our mind in 6 months
- What survives termination?
- Auto-renewal traps
3d. Indemnification and Liability
- Is risk allocation balanced?
- Who indemnifies whom, for what?
- Liability caps (or lack thereof)
- Insurance requirements
- Are we absorbing disproportionate exposure for a company our size?
3e. Non-Standard or Unusual Terms
- Anything that deviates from typical agreements of this type
- Governing law mismatches (e.g., foreign jurisdiction for US-US deal)
- Unusual confidentiality or non-compete scope
- Broad assignment or change-of-control clauses
- Reference or testimonial obligations
3f. Internal Contradiction Detection
- Actively look for clauses that contradict each other
- Check if defined terms are used consistently
- Verify cross-references point to the right sections
- Flag ambiguities where two reasonable readings lead to different outcomes
3g. Internal Alignment
- Do contract terms match what was discussed in Slack/Notion/email?
- Are the deliverables, price, and timeline consistent with internal context?
- Flag any discrepancies between what was negotiated and what's in the contract
Step 4: Cross-Reference
Compare contract terms against any internal context found in Step 2:
- Price — Does the amount match what was discussed?
- Deliverables — Are all agreed items listed? Anything missing or added?
- Timeline — Do dates align with internal plans?
- People — Are the right signatories and contacts listed?
- Special terms — Were any verbal agreements or Slack negotiations not reflected?
Step 5: Deliver Analysis
Use the output format below. Be specific and actionable.
Output Format
Structure every review exactly like this:
TL;DR Verdict
One of three verdicts with a 1-2 sentence rationale:
- Proceed — Minor or no issues. Sign it.
- Proceed with changes — Fixable issues that should be addressed before signing. List the must-fix items.
- Hold — Major issues that need resolution first. Do not sign until these are fixed.
Key Risks
Ranked by severity (highest first). For each risk:
- Name the risk (bolded, with severity tag: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW)
- What the clause says — quote or paraphrase the specific language
- Why it matters for us — explain the practical impact for a company our size
- Recommendation — specific fix (proposed language change, deletion, or addition)
Typical count: 3-7 risks. Don't pad with trivial items.
Questions to Raise
Specific questions organized by audience:
- To [counterparty name]: — Questions to raise in negotiation
- Internal: — Things to verify or discuss before signing
Each question should include context on why it matters.
Notable but Acceptable
Clauses worth being aware of but not requiring action. This section shows thoroughness without creating false alarm. Keep it brief — bullet points, not paragraphs.
Internal Context Gap
What couldn't be verified through internal search and what someone should manually cross-reference before signing. Be specific about which documents or conversations to check.
Calibration by Contract Type
Vendor/Service Agreements ($1K-$25K)
- Focus on: deliverables, payment terms, termination, IP
- Don't sweat: minor indemnification imbalances, boilerplate governing law
- Watch for: auto-renewals, scope creep provisions, hidden fees
Vendor/Service Agreements ($25K+)
- Full analysis on all lenses
- Pay extra attention to: liability caps, indemnification, termination penalties
- Consider requesting: insurance certificates, financial stability evidence
NDAs / Confidentiality
- Focus on: definition of confidential info, term, carve-outs, residuals clause
- Watch for: overly broad non-compete buried in NDA, asymmetric obligations
Employment / Contractor
- Focus on: IP assignment, non-compete scope, termination provisions
- Watch for: work-for-hire vs assignment, invention pre-assignment, non-solicit scope
Partnership / Revenue Share
- Focus on: economics, audit rights, term, exclusivity, termination
- Watch for: most-favored-nation clauses, change of control triggers, IP contamination
Event / Sponsorship
- Focus on: deliverables match expectations, cancellation/refund terms, force majeure
- Watch for: unilateral change rights, vague deliverables, no-refund traps
Quality Principles
- Judgment over checklist — Not every lens applies to every contract. Spend time where the risk is.
- Practical over theoretical — "This could theoretically be an issue" is not useful. "This will cost you $X if Y happens" is.
- Specific over vague — Quote clauses, name sections, propose specific language changes.
- Proportional to deal size — A $5K sponsorship doesn't need the same scrutiny as a $500K MSA.
- Honest about gaps — If you couldn't verify something, say so. Don't pretend you checked what you didn't.
Example
Example application: a $5K event sponsorship review caught a force majeure contradiction, flagged a unilateral change clause, noted a governing law mismatch, and identified a timing issue with past-tense event dates.
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
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.

