agentleFS
mDevsLabsmDevsLabs/Skills/skills/contract-reviewer/SKILL.md

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

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
  1. Distinctive:

    Use for an agreement the user is about to sign or negotiate: MSA, NDA, SOW, terms of service, subscription or vendor agreement, employment …

    line 23
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not use for: drafting a contract from scratch (this reviews, it does not author), advising on whether a specific term is *enforceable* …

    line 27
  3. Distinctive:

    Keep each recommendation specific and actionable.

    line 89

“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.

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

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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 md

It 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:

FoundAlso check forIf present, downgrade to…
Limitation of liabilitya cap and an exception for gross negligence/willful misconductReassess severity; cap + carve-outs is normal
Indemnificationa cap, a "proportionate to fault" carve-outReassess; unilateral uncapped is the risk
Auto-renewalan easy opt-out notice periodReassess; hidden auto-renewal is the risk
Non-competea defined scope, duration and territoryReassess; vague breadth is the risk
Governing lawa mutually agreed jurisdictionReassess; a foreign forum is the risk

4. Build the negotiation list

Prioritize by severity, then by how costly the downside is. Deliver:

ColumnContent
#Priority
ClauseCategory + quote
LocationSection / page / line
Why it mattersConcrete downside for the user
AskThe change or carve-out to request
FallbackA 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.py run 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

SituationResponse
Scanned / OCR'd inputAsk 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 jurisdictionFlag governing law/venue; do not opine on enforceability
Sensitive/confidential agreementAdvise restricted distribution and not to paste into public tools
User wants "is this enforceable?"Decline; recommend qualified legal review in the relevant jurisdiction

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.