contract-review
Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Review legal contracts, NDAs, employment agreements, SaaS terms, and M&A documents. Identifies unfavorable terms, suggests redlines, and compares to market standards. Use for contract analysis, due diligence, or negotiation prep.
37 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.
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 · 1
- evolsb/claude-legal-skill★ 428100% same
Edited · 1
Wrote their own version · 35
- anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins★ 35ksame name
- anbeime/skill★ 7.9ksame name
- Devolutions/IronRDP★ 3.3ksame name
- claude-office-skills/skills★ 433same 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
- randommonicle/claude-skills★ 27same name
25 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 repository52 other files it gives its agents.
- skills/composition-patterns/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- sample-project/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- agent-orchestratorSkill
- api-designSkill
- banner-designSkill
- brainstormingSkill
- brandSkill
- capital-accountsSkill
- composition-patternsSkill
- continuous-learning-v2Skill
- credential-scannerSkill
- deployment-patternsSkill
- design-systemSkill
- dispatching-parallel-agentsSkill
- docker-patternsSkill
- e2e-testingSkill
- executing-plansSkill
- finishing-a-development-branchSkill
- fixed-assetsSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- git-guardrails-claude-codeSkill
- graphifySkill
- huashu-designSkill
- investmentsSkill
- iterative-retrievalSkill
- legal-agreementSkill
- plain-english-translationSkill
- terms-of-service-generatorSkill
- pdfSkill
- prd-to-issuesSkill
- prd-to-planSkill
- receiving-code-reviewSkill
- requesting-code-reviewSkill
- security-reviewSkill
- shapeSkill
- slidesSkill
- subagent-driven-developmentSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- test-driven-developmentSkill
- triage-issueSkill
- ui-stylingSkill
- ui-ux-pro-maxSkill
- using-git-worktreesSkill
- using-superpowersSkill
- verification-before-completionSkill
- video-prompt-builderSkill
- webapp-testingSkill
- web-design-guidelinesSkill
- write-a-prdSkill
- writing-plansSkill
- writing-skillsSkill
- xlsxSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 22 edited versions we read keep these.
7
Distinctive
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
- Distinctive: line 21
Before analyzing content, verify document completeness:
- Distinctive: line 28
If blank fields or missing exhibits exist, flag prominently in output header.
- Distinctive: line 52
Use markdown for readable, scannable output.
- Distinctive: line 180
Check these danger signs FIRST before deep analysis:
- Distinctive: line 284
Document Name and Type
- Distinctive: line 429
No hallucination: Only reference text actually in document
- Distinctive: line 430
Show what's acceptable: Always include "Reviewed & Acceptable" section
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 22 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 Skill
Review legal contracts for risks, extract key terms, and suggest redlines. Built on the CUAD dataset (41 risk categories), ContractEval benchmarks, and LegalBench.
When to Activate
- User mentions "review contract", "analyze agreement", "check this contract"
- User uploads or references a PDF/DOCX legal document
- User asks about specific clauses, risks, or terms
Step 1: Pre-Review Checklist
Before analyzing content, verify document completeness:
- Blank fields: Flag any "$X", "TBD", "[amount]", "____" placeholders
- Missing exhibits: List all referenced schedules/exhibits and note which are missing
- Signature status: Draft or already executed?
- All pages present: Check for truncation or missing sections
If blank fields or missing exhibits exist, flag prominently in output header.
Step 2: Identify Document Type & User Position
Ask if unclear: "Which party are you? (customer, vendor, buyer, seller, licensor, licensee, receiving party, disclosing party)"
This affects what's "risky":
- Customer reviewing vendor agreement → flag vendor-favorable terms
- Vendor reviewing own template → flag customer-favorable terms
- Buyer in M&A → flag seller-favorable terms
- Seller in M&A → flag buyer-favorable terms
- Receiving party in NDA → flag disclosing party-favorable terms
Assess power dynamic:
- Startup vs. large enterprise? (limited negotiating leverage)
- Standard form vs. negotiated? (some terms non-negotiable)
- Regulated industry? (some terms legally required)
Output Format
Use markdown for readable, scannable output. Do NOT use XML tags.
Example Output
# Contract Review: [Document Name]
**Document Type:** SaaS Subscription Agreement
**Your Position:** Customer
**Counterparty:** Acme Software Inc.
**Risk Level:** 🟡 Medium
**Document Status:** Draft / Executed on [date]
## ⚠️ Pre-Signing Alerts
- **Blank field:** Fee amount in Section 4.1 is "$____"
- **Missing exhibit:** Exhibit B (SLA) referenced but not attached
## Executive Summary
Standard vendor agreement with some one-sided terms. The 3-month liability cap and
asymmetric termination rights need attention. Data ownership is clear.
---
## Key Terms
| Term | Value | Location |
|------|-------|----------|
| Initial Term | 12 months | Section 8.1 |
| Auto-Renewal | 12-month periods, 60-day notice | Section 8.2 |
| Liability Cap | 3 months' fees | Section 10.2 |
| Governing Law | Delaware | Section 12.1 |
---
## Red Flags (Quick Scan)
| Flag | Found | Location |
|------|-------|----------|
| Liability cap < 6 months | ⚠️ Yes | Section 10.2 |
| Uncapped indemnification | No | — |
| Unilateral amendment rights | ⚠️ Yes | Section 14.1 |
| No termination for convenience | No | — |
| Perpetual obligations | No | — |
| Offshore jurisdiction | No | — |
---
## Risk Analysis
### 🔴 Critical
**Limitation of Liability** (Section 10.2)
> "Liability shall not exceed fees paid in the preceding three (3) months"
- **Issue:** 3-month cap is below market standard (typically 12 months)
- **Risk:** For $120K annual contract, liability capped at $30K
- **Market Standard:** 12 months' fees
- **Negotiability:** Medium — most vendors accept 6-12 months
- **Redline:** Change "three (3) months" → "twelve (12) months"
- **Fallback:** Accept 6 months as compromise
---
### 🟡 Important
**Termination for Convenience** (Section 8.5)
> "Vendor may terminate for any reason upon 30 days notice"
- **Issue:** One-sided; customer lacks equivalent right
- **Market Standard:** Mutual termination rights
- **Negotiability:** High — reasonable ask
- **Redline:** Add "Either party may terminate..." or change to "90 days"
---
### 🟢 Reviewed & Acceptable
| Category | Status | Notes |
|----------|--------|-------|
| Data Ownership | ✓ | Customer owns all customer data |
| IP Rights | ✓ | Clear separation, no broad assignment |
| Confidentiality | ✓ | Mutual, 3-year term, standard exceptions |
| Governing Law | ✓ | Delaware — neutral for commercial |
---
## Missing Provisions
| Provision | Priority | Why It Matters |
|-----------|----------|----------------|
| Data Export Rights | Critical | No guaranteed way to get data out on termination |
| SLA Credits | Important | 99.9% uptime stated but no remedy for breach |
| Price Increase Cap | Important | Renewal pricing uncapped |
**Suggested language for Data Export:**
> "Upon termination, Vendor shall make Customer Data available for export in CSV or JSON format for 90 days at no additional charge."
---
## Internal Consistency Issues
- ⚠️ Section 5.2 references "Exhibit C" but no Exhibit C exists
- ⚠️ "Confidential Information" defined in Section 3.1 but used lowercase in Section 7
---
## Negotiation Priority
| # | Issue | Ask | Negotiability |
|---|-------|-----|---------------|
| 1 | Liability cap | 12 months | Medium |
| 2 | Termination rights | Mutual | High |
| 3 | Data export | Add provision | High |
| 4 | Price cap | 5% annual max | Medium |
---
*This review is for informational purposes only. Material terms should be reviewed by qualified legal counsel.*Red Flags Quick Scan
Check these danger signs FIRST before deep analysis:
| Red Flag | Why It Matters |
| Liability cap < 6 months | Inadequate protection |
| Uncapped indemnification | Unlimited exposure |
| "As-is" with no warranty | No recourse for defects |
| Unilateral suspension without notice | Service can vanish |
| Unilateral amendment rights | Terms can change |
| No termination for convenience | Locked in |
| Perpetual obligations (tails, non-competes) | Indefinite exposure |
| Offshore jurisdiction (BVI, Cayman) | Expensive to enforce |
| Pre-signed conflict waivers | No recourse for conflicts |
| "Sole discretion" language favoring counterparty | No objective standard |
| Class action waiver + mandatory arbitration | Limited remedies |
| Asymmetric assignment rights | They can assign, you can't |
Document Type Checklists
NDA Checklist
| Category | Check For |
| Direction | One-way or mutual? |
| Definition scope | "All information" too broad? Standard exceptions? |
| Term | 2 years short, 3-5 typical, indefinite for trade secrets |
| Permitted disclosure | "Representatives" defined? Flow-down required? |
| Residuals clause | Can use general knowledge retained in memory? |
| Non-solicitation | Employees protected? |
| Standstill | Prevents hostile acquisition actions? |
| No-contact | Customers, suppliers, employees protected? |
| Return/destruction | Certification required? |
| Public announcement | Prohibits disclosure of discussions? |
| Compelled disclosure | Notice required? Time to seek protective order? |
| Injunctive relief | Pre-agreed specific performance? Bond waiver? |
SaaS/MSA Checklist
| Category | Check For |
| Liability cap | 12+ months = standard |
| Uptime SLA | 99.9% with credits = standard |
| Suspension rights | Unilateral? Notice required? |
| Data ownership | Customer owns customer data? |
| Data export | Format, duration, cost on termination? |
| Price increases | Capped? Notice period? |
| Auto-renewal notice | 90+ days = good, <60 = risk |
| Termination | Mutual for convenience? Cure period for cause? |
| Subprocessors | Notice of changes? Approval rights? |
| Insurance | Vendor carries E&O, cyber? |
Payment/Merchant Agreement Checklist
| Category | Check For |
| Reserve/holdback | Amount, duration, release conditions? |
| Chargeback liability | Capped? Fraud protection? |
| Network rules | Incorporated by reference? Access provided? |
| Auto-debit authority | Notice before debits? |
| Settlement timing | When do you receive funds? |
| Volume commitments | Realistic? Penalty for shortfall? |
| Suspension rights | Immediate or notice? |
| Termination tail | How long do obligations survive? |
| Audit rights | Frequency, notice, cost allocation? |
| PCI compliance | Who bears cost? |
M&A Agreement Checklist
| Category | Check For |
| Purchase price | Cash vs. stock vs. earnout mix? |
| Earnout mechanics | Measurement, discretion, audit rights, acceleration? |
| Escrow/holdback | Amount (10-15% typical), duration (12-18 mo), release? |
| Rep survival | 12-24 months general, longer for fundamental |
| Indemnification cap | 10-20% of purchase price typical |
| Basket type | True deductible vs. tipping? |
| Sandbagging | Pro-buyer or anti-sandbagging? |
| Non-compete | 2-3 years, geographic scope? |
| Working capital | Target, collar, true-up mechanism? |
| MAC definition | Carve-outs for market conditions? |
| Employment comp | Counted in purchase price or separate? |
Finder/Broker Agreement Checklist
| Category | Check For |
| Fee percentage | Specified or blank? |
| Fee calculation | What's included in deal value? Employment comp? |
| "Covered buyer" definition | How broad? Any prior relationship carve-out? |
| Tail period | 12-24 months typical; perpetual = red flag |
| Exclusivity | Exclusive or non-exclusive? |
| Minimum fee | Floor amount? |
| Joint representation | Consent required? Conflict waiver? |
| Escrow deduction | Auto-pay from proceeds? |
| Term/termination | Can you exit? |
| Broker status | BD registered if securities involved? |
Risk Categories (CUAD 41 + Extensions)
Document Basics
- Document Name and Type
- Parties (legal names, roles)
- Agreement Date / Effective Date
- Expiration Date
- Renewal Terms
- Document Status (draft/executed)
- Blank Fields / Placeholders
Term & Termination
- Contract Term / Duration
- Termination for Convenience
- Termination for Cause
- Post-Termination Services
- Survival Clauses
- Suspension Rights (immediate vs. with notice)
- Cure Periods
Assignment & Control
- Anti-Assignment Clause
- Change of Control
- Consent Requirements
- Asymmetric Assignment (they can, you can't)
Financial Terms
- Payment Terms
- Price Restrictions / Adjustments
- Most Favored Nation (MFN)
- Minimum Commitment
- Volume Restrictions
- Audit Rights
- Price Escalation Caps
- Reserve/Holdback Requirements
- Auto-Debit Authority
Liability & Risk
- Limitation of Liability
- Cap on Liability
- Uncapped Liability Carve-outs
- Indemnification
- Insurance Requirements
- Warranty Duration
- Warranty Disclaimer (As-Is)
- Exclusive Remedy Clauses
- Chargeback/Return Liability
IP & Confidentiality
- IP Ownership Assignment
- License Grant
- Affiliate License - Licensor/Licensee
- Covenant Not To Sue
- Non-Compete
- Non-Solicitation (Employees/Customers)
- Competitive Restriction Exception
- Exclusivity
- Non-Disparagement
- Confidentiality Duration
- Third Party Beneficiary
- Residuals Clause
- Feedback Ownership
Dispute Resolution
- Governing Law
- Jurisdiction / Venue
- Arbitration vs Litigation
- Jury Trial Waiver
- Class Action Waiver
- Offshore Jurisdiction Flags
Special Provisions
- ROFR / ROFO / ROFN
- Revenue/Profit Sharing
- Joint IP Ownership
- Source Code Escrow
- Irrevocable or Perpetual License
- Data Export Rights
- Uptime/Availability SLA
- Sublicensing Rights
- Unilateral Amendment Rights
Market Standard Benchmarks
| Provision | Standard | Yellow Flag | Red Flag |
| Liability cap | 12 months' fees | 6-11 months | <6 months |
| Non-compete duration | 1-2 years | 3-4 years | 5+ years |
| Non-compete geography | Where business operates | State-wide | Nationwide |
| Auto-renewal notice | 90+ days | 60-89 days | <60 days |
| Termination notice | Mutual, 60-90 days | One-sided, 30 days | Immediate |
| Indemnification | Mutual, capped | Asymmetric | Uncapped |
| Rep survival (M&A) | 12-18 months general | 24-30 months | 36+ months |
| Escrow (M&A) | 10-15% for 12-18 mo | 15-20% for 18-24 mo | >20% or >24 mo |
| Confidentiality (NDA) | 3 years general | 2 years | 5+ years |
| Fee tail (broker) | 12-18 months | 24 months | Perpetual |
| SLA uptime | 99.9% with credits | 99.5% | No SLA |
| Data export | 90 days, standard format | 30 days | None |
| Price increase cap | CPI or 5% annual | 10% annual | Uncapped |
| Cure period | 30 days | 15 days | None |
Negotiability Guide
| Rating | Meaning | Examples |
| High | Usually accepted | Mutual termination, cure periods, data export |
| Medium | Depends on leverage | Liability cap increase, price caps |
| Low | Rarely changed | Network rules (payments), regulatory requirements |
| None | Non-negotiable | Card network mandates, banking regulations |
Power dynamic factors:
- Large customer + small vendor = more leverage
- Startup + enterprise vendor = less leverage
- Competitive market = more leverage
- Sole-source vendor = less leverage
- Regulated terms = no leverage (legally required)
Jurisdiction Notes
Non-Competes:
- California, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Minnesota: Generally void
- Other states: Reasonableness test applies
Choice of Law:
- Delaware: Corp-friendly, predictable
- New York: Financial agreements, sophisticated courts
- California: Employee-friendly, tech industry
- BVI/Cayman: Offshore, expensive to litigate, potential red flag
Arbitration Venues:
- AAA, JAMS: Standard US commercial
- SIAC (Singapore), LCIA (London): International, expensive
- Mandatory + class waiver: Limits remedies significantly
Guardrails
- Not legal advice: Recommend attorney review for material terms
- Not tax advice: Flag but don't opine
- Jurisdiction matters: Note when enforceability varies
- Express uncertainty: Say when interpretation is unclear
- No hallucination: Only reference text actually in document
- Show what's acceptable: Always include "Reviewed & Acceptable" section
- Document status matters: Note if already executed (review is informational)
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.

