contract-reviewer
Skill2 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Flags high-risk clauses in a contract or legal agreement (auto-renewal, unilateral termination, limitation of liability, indemnification, non-compete, non-solicitation, assignment, foreign governing law, exclusivity, payment terms) with the exact wording and its location, and frames each as a negotiation lever. Use when the user shares a contract, terms of service, MSA, NDA, SOW or vendor agreement and wants the risky clauses called out before signing or negotiating, or wants a negotiation checklist.
8 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- catduckgnaf/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Aug 3, 2026
- lotushj1/claude-skill-contract-reviewertheir own version, first seen Jul 30, 2026
- Hassaan146/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Jul 25, 2026
- Uhudsavasindankacanokcu2/legal-skills-for-claudetheir own version, first seen Jun 18, 2026
- pb-jwhitlock/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Jun 2, 2026
- unrealandychan/AgentFoundrytheir own version, first seen Apr 22, 2026
Other versions8 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 8
- Hassaan146/claude-skills★ 18same name
- SoMarkAI/skills★ 17same name
- xcrrr/claude-skills★ 6same name
- lotushj1/claude-skill-contract-reviewer★ 4same name
- unrealandychan/AgentFoundry★ 1same name
- catduckgnaf/claude-skills★ 0same name
- pb-jwhitlock/claude-skills★ 0same name
- Uhudsavasindankacanokcu2/legal-skills-for-claude★ 0same name
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 repository13 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- accessibility-auditorSkill
- csv-data-profilerSkill
- dependency-auditorSkill
- git-workflow-assistantSkill
- meeting-notes-to-actionsSkill
- prompt-engineering-optimizerSkill
- release-notes-generatorSkill
- rest-api-designerSkill
- security-code-reviewSkill
- sql-query-optimizerSkill
- technical-writing-editorSkill
- web-research-synthesizerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 7 edited versions we read keep these.
3
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 23
Use for an agreement the user is about to sign or negotiate: MSA, NDA, SOW, terms of service, subscription or vendor agreement, employment …
- Distinctive: line 27
Do not use for: drafting a contract from scratch (this reviews, it does not author), advising on whether a specific term is *enforceable* …
- Distinctive: line 89
Keep each recommendation specific and actionable.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 7 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 Reviewer
Surface the clauses that deserve attention before you sign — as leads, not legal advice.
When to use
Use for an agreement the user is about to sign or negotiate: MSA, NDA, SOW, terms of service, subscription or vendor agreement, employment contract. Good for building a negotiation checklist.
Do not use for: drafting a contract from scratch (this reviews, it does not author), advising on whether a specific term is enforceable in a given jurisdiction (that requires qualified legal review and local law), or reviewing a document the user has already had reviewed by counsel. The output flags language and frames negotiation — it is not legal advice and must be confirmed by a lawyer before acting on it.
Core discipline
Two rules keep this safe:
- Flag wording, not meaning. You identify clauses by their language and report the exact wording with its location. You never assert a clause is invalid, unenforceable or illegal.
- Every finding is a negotiation lever. For each flag, state what the counterparty likely wants and what to ask for in return.
Workflow
1. Get the source text
Accept the full text, a paste, a PDF converted to text, or a file. If the input is scanned/images only, ask the user to run OCR first — a partial read produces a partial review, which is worse than none.
2. Run the clause scanner
python3 scripts/clause_scan.py contract.txt --format mdIt searches for the risk patterns in the catalogue below and reports each match with severity, the clause category, the exact matched wording and the line it appeared on. Output is a candidate list: it cannot reason about context (exceptions, carve-outs, schedule references), so review each hit against the surrounding text.
3. Review each hit in context
For every match, read the paragraph around it and check for carve-outs:
| Found | Also check for | If present, downgrade to… |
| Limitation of liability | a cap and an exception for gross negligence/willful misconduct | Reassess severity; cap + carve-outs is normal |
| Indemnification | a cap, a "proportionate to fault" carve-out | Reassess; unilateral uncapped is the risk |
| Auto-renewal | an easy opt-out notice period | Reassess; hidden auto-renewal is the risk |
| Non-compete | a defined scope, duration and territory | Reassess; vague breadth is the risk |
| Governing law | a mutually agreed jurisdiction | Reassess; a foreign forum is the risk |
4. Build the negotiation list
Prioritize by severity, then by how costly the downside is. Deliver:
| Column | Content |
| # | Priority |
| Clause | Category + quote |
| Location | Section / page / line |
| Why it matters | Concrete downside for the user |
| Ask | The change or carve-out to request |
| Fallback | A less favorable but acceptable position |
Keep each recommendation specific and actionable; never propose a term without stating why it protects the user.
Worked example
Input (excerpt) — an MSA
9.1 This agreement will renew automatically for successive twelve-month terms unless either party gives written notice of non-renewal at least sixty days prior to the expiration of the then-current term. 12.3 Neither party shall be liable to the other for any indirect, incidental, consequential, special or punitive damages, and in no event shall the aggregate liability of either party exceed the fees paid in the preceding twelve months. 13.1 The Licensee shall indemnify and hold harmless Licensor against any and all claims arising from Licensee's use of the software.
Output (excerpt)
HIGH auto-renewal "renew automatically ... unless either party gives
written notice of non-renewal"
§9.1 — 60-day notice; ensure a calendar reminder and a
named owner for the non-renewal notice.
MEDIUM limitation-liability "shall not be liable ... indirect, incidental ..."
§12.3 — reciprocal, with a cap and no gross-negligence
carve-out noted; confirm the cap and add an exception
for willful misconduct.
HIGH indemnification "shall indemnify and hold harmless Licensor"
§13.1 — unilateral, uncapped, no-fault phrasing.
Negotiate a cap, a "proportionate to fault" carve-out,
and reciprocal indemnification.Why — auto-renewal with a short notice window is a scheduling trap; the limitation clause is reciprocal so it is lower risk than it first looks; the indemnification is one-sided and uncapped, which is the biggest exposure.
Quality checklist
clause_scan.pyrun on the full source text- Every hit checked against surrounding context and carve-outs
- Each finding quotes the exact wording and its location
- No claim about enforceability or legality made
- Negotiation list ordered by severity with an ask and a fallback
- Explicit disclaimer: leads to confirm, not legal advice
- Nothing invented or implied that is not in the text
Failure modes
| Situation | Response |
| Scanned / OCR'd input | Ask for a clean text source; do not review a partial read |
| Matches outside real meaning (e.g. "terminate" in a software context) | Read the paragraph; drop or downgrade false positives |
| Contract from another jurisdiction | Flag governing law/venue; do not opine on enforceability |
| Sensitive/confidential agreement | Advise restricted distribution and not to paste into public tools |
| User wants "is this enforceable?" | Decline; recommend qualified legal review in the relevant jurisdiction |
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.

