review-contract
Clause-by-clause contract review — inventories key clauses (term, termination, liability cap, indemnity, IP, payment, confidentiality, governing law, auto-renewal), flags deviations from market-standard positions with RED/YELLOW/GREEN severity and verbatim quotes, drafts redline
Install
npx skills add https://github.com/alebgl77/claude-inc/tree/main/skills/review-contract
claude plugin marketplace add https://llmmart.ai/marketplace.json && claude plugin install alebgl77-claude-inc@llmmart
git clone https://github.com/alebgl77/claude-inc.git
The skills CLI installs just this skill, for any of its supported agents. Claude Code installs the whole alebgl77/claude-inc collection as a plugin from our marketplace. Git is the plain clone.
Skill manifest
Review Contract — Contract Reviewer
"Review any contract"
Works on pasted contract text or a file. No playbook required: deviations are measured against explicit market-standard positions, so every judgment is visible and overridable.
When to use
- "Review this MSA before tomorrow's call" — any contract that deserves more than a skim
- "Can we sign this vendor agreement as-is?" — a go/no-go read with fixes attached
- "What would you push back on here?" — building a negotiation position from scratch
- "They sent their redline back — does it hurt?" — re-review of a revised draft
- Standalone NDAs move faster through
triage-nda; use this skill when confidentiality terms sit inside a bigger deal
Workflow
- Ingest the contract (pasted text or file path). Record parties, which side we are, contract type, effective date, and any deadline mentioned.
- Inventory the nine key clauses: term, termination, liability cap, indemnity, IP ownership/license, payment, confidentiality, governing law and disputes, auto-renewal. A missing clause is a finding, not a blank — mark it MISSING.
- Benchmark each clause against market-standard positions, stated explicitly (e.g., liability capped at 12 months' fees and mutual; indemnity limited to third-party IP, bodily injury, and confidentiality claims; termination for cause with 30-day cure; auto-renewal with a 30-day-or-longer opt-out; no unilateral mid-term price increases).
- Assign severity per finding — RED: dealbreaker or uncapped exposure, do not sign as-is; YELLOW: off-market but fixable with targeted language; GREEN: market or better. Quote the operative text verbatim under every RED and YELLOW.
- Draft a redline for every RED and YELLOW: replacement language ready to paste into the document, not a description of what to change.
- Order negotiation priorities: REDs first, ranked by exposure; then YELLOWs ranked by cost-to-fix, marking which are trade material ("give to get").
- Assemble the report in the output format. When working in a folder, save it beside the contract as
<contract-name>-review.mdand report the path.
Output format
CONTRACT REVIEW — <contract name> — <date>
Parties: <counterparty> / <us> (we are the <customer/vendor/licensor/...>)
Type: <MSA / SaaS / services / license> Deadline: <date or none>
CLAUSE INVENTORY
| Clause | Present? | Severity | vs. market standard |
|-----------------|----------|----------|----------------------|
| Term | §<n> | GREEN | <one line> |
| Termination | §<n> | YELLOW | <one line> |
| Liability cap | MISSING | RED | uncapped by silence |
| Indemnity | §<n> | <sev> | <one line> |
| IP | §<n> | <sev> | <one line> |
| Payment | §<n> | <sev> | <one line> |
| Confidentiality | §<n> | <sev> | <one line> |
| Governing law | §<n> | <sev> | <one line> |
| Auto-renewal | §<n> | <sev> | <one line> |
FINDINGS
[RED] <clause> — <business impact, one line>
Quote: "<verbatim clause text>"
Redline: "<paste-ready replacement language>"
[YELLOW] <clause> — <business impact, one line>
Quote: "<verbatim clause text>"
Redline: "<paste-ready replacement language>"
[GREEN] <clauses at market or better — one line, no action>
NEGOTIATION PRIORITY
1. <RED finding> — must fix; walk away if refused
2. <RED finding> — must fix; fallback: <fallback position>
3. <YELLOW finding> — push; trade against <concession we can give>
*Issue-spotting support, not legal advice — engage counsel for binding decisions.*
Quality bar
- All nine key clauses inventoried; MISSING treated as a finding with severity
- Every RED and YELLOW quotes the clause verbatim — no paraphrase-only flags
- Every RED and YELLOW ships a paste-ready redline, not "negotiate this"
- Each severity justified in one line of plain business impact
- Negotiation order ranks by exposure and leverage, not page order
- Market-standard baseline stated wherever a deviation is flagged
Example
Invocation: "Review this SaaS agreement — we're the customer, they want it signed Friday." (contract pasted)
Produces: A review flagging RED on one-way indemnity ("Customer shall indemnify Provider against any and all claims arising from use of the Services") with a mutual, capped redline; YELLOW on a 12-month auto-renewal with a 90-day opt-out window; GREEN on payment and confidentiality. Negotiation priority puts indemnity first with a fallback cap at 12 months' fees, and marks the opt-out window as trade material.
Issue-spotting support, not legal advice — engage counsel for binding decisions.
Files (claude-inc)
-
SKILL.md 5.2 KB
--- name: review-contract description: "Clause-by-clause contract review — inventories key clauses (term, termination, liability cap, indemnity, IP, payment, confidentiality, governing law, auto-renewal), flags deviations from market-standard positions with RED/YELLOW/GREEN severity and verbatim quotes, drafts redline language, and sets negotiation priority. Use when the user says 'review this contract', 'what's wrong with this MSA', 'can we sign this as-is', or pastes any agreement for analysis." --- # Review Contract — Contract Reviewer > "Review any contract" Works on pasted contract text or a file. No playbook required: deviations are measured against explicit market-standard positions, so every judgment is visible and overridable. ## When to use - "Review this MSA before tomorrow's call" — any contract that deserves more than a skim - "Can we sign this vendor agreement as-is?" — a go/no-go read with fixes attached - "What would you push back on here?" — building a negotiation position from scratch - "They sent their redline back — does it hurt?" — re-review of a revised draft - Standalone NDAs move faster through `triage-nda`; use this skill when confidentiality terms sit inside a bigger deal ## Workflow 1. Ingest the contract (pasted text or file path). Record parties, which side we are, contract type, effective date, and any deadline mentioned. 2. Inventory the nine key clauses: term, termination, liability cap, indemnity, IP ownership/license, payment, confidentiality, governing law and disputes, auto-renewal. A missing clause is a finding, not a blank — mark it MISSING. 3. Benchmark each clause against market-standard positions, stated explicitly (e.g., liability capped at 12 months' fees and mutual; indemnity limited to third-party IP, bodily injury, and confidentiality claims; termination for cause with 30-day cure; auto-renewal with a 30-day-or-longer opt-out; no unilateral mid-term price increases). 4. Assign severity per finding — RED: dealbreaker or uncapped exposure, do not sign as-is; YELLOW: off-market but fixable with targeted language; GREEN: market or better. Quote the operative text verbatim under every RED and YELLOW. 5. Draft a redline for every RED and YELLOW: replacement language ready to paste into the document, not a description of what to change. 6. Order negotiation priorities: REDs first, ranked by exposure; then YELLOWs ranked by cost-to-fix, marking which are trade material ("give to get"). 7. Assemble the report in the output format. When working in a folder, save it beside the contract as `<contract-name>-review.md` and report the path. ## Output format ``` CONTRACT REVIEW — <contract name> — <date> Parties: <counterparty> / <us> (we are the <customer/vendor/licensor/...>) Type: <MSA / SaaS / services / license> Deadline: <date or none> CLAUSE INVENTORY | Clause | Present? | Severity | vs. market standard | |-----------------|----------|----------|----------------------| | Term | §<n> | GREEN | <one line> | | Termination | §<n> | YELLOW | <one line> | | Liability cap | MISSING | RED | uncapped by silence | | Indemnity | §<n> | <sev> | <one line> | | IP | §<n> | <sev> | <one line> | | Payment | §<n> | <sev> | <one line> | | Confidentiality | §<n> | <sev> | <one line> | | Governing law | §<n> | <sev> | <one line> | | Auto-renewal | §<n> | <sev> | <one line> | FINDINGS [RED] <clause> — <business impact, one line> Quote: "<verbatim clause text>" Redline: "<paste-ready replacement language>" [YELLOW] <clause> — <business impact, one line> Quote: "<verbatim clause text>" Redline: "<paste-ready replacement language>" [GREEN] <clauses at market or better — one line, no action> NEGOTIATION PRIORITY 1. <RED finding> — must fix; walk away if refused 2. <RED finding> — must fix; fallback: <fallback position> 3. <YELLOW finding> — push; trade against <concession we can give> *Issue-spotting support, not legal advice — engage counsel for binding decisions.* ``` ## Quality bar - [ ] All nine key clauses inventoried; MISSING treated as a finding with severity - [ ] Every RED and YELLOW quotes the clause verbatim — no paraphrase-only flags - [ ] Every RED and YELLOW ships a paste-ready redline, not "negotiate this" - [ ] Each severity justified in one line of plain business impact - [ ] Negotiation order ranks by exposure and leverage, not page order - [ ] Market-standard baseline stated wherever a deviation is flagged ## Example **Invocation:** "Review this SaaS agreement — we're the customer, they want it signed Friday." (contract pasted) **Produces:** A review flagging RED on one-way indemnity ("Customer shall indemnify Provider against any and all claims arising from use of the Services") with a mutual, capped redline; YELLOW on a 12-month auto-renewal with a 90-day opt-out window; GREEN on payment and confidentiality. Negotiation priority puts indemnity first with a fallback cap at 12 months' fees, and marks the opt-out window as trade material. *Issue-spotting support, not legal advice — engage counsel for binding decisions.*
Comments (0)
Sign in to join the conversation.
Reviews (0)
No reviews yet.
No comments yet.