review-contract
Review a contract against your organization's negotiation playbook — flag deviations, generate redlines, provide business impact analysis
What this skill does
# /legal:review-contract -- Contract Review Against Playbook > If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see [CONNECTORS.md](../../CONNECTORS.md). Review a contract against your organization's negotiation playbook. Analyze each clause, flag deviations, generate redline suggestions, and provide business impact analysis. ## Invocation ``` /legal:review-contract <contract file or URL> ``` Review the contract: @$1 ## Workflow ### Step 1: Accept the Contract Accept the contract in any of these formats: - **File upload**: PDF, DOCX, or other document format - **URL**: Link to a contract in your CLM, cloud storage (e.g., Box, Egnyte, SharePoint), or other document system - **Pasted text**: Contract text pasted directly into the conversation If no contract is provided, prompt the user to supply one. ### Step 2: Gather Context Ask the user for context before beginning the review: 1. **Which side are you on?** (vendor/supplier, customer/buyer, licensor, licensee, partner -- or other) 2. **Deadline**: When does this need to be finalized? (Affects prioritization of issues) 3. **Focus areas**: Any specific concerns? (e.g., "data protection is critical", "we need flexibility on term", "IP ownership is the key issue") 4. **Deal context**: Any relevant business context? (e.g., deal size, strategic importance, existing relationship) If the user provides partial context, proceed with what you have and note assumptions. ### Step 3: Load the Playbook Look for the organization's contract review playbook in local settings (e.g., `legal.local.md` or similar configuration files). The playbook should define: - **Standard positions**: The organization's preferred terms for each major clause type - **Acceptable ranges**: Terms that can be agreed to without escalation - **Escalation triggers**: Terms that require senior counsel review or outside counsel involvement **If no playbook is configured:** - Inform the user that no playbook was found - Offer two options: 1. Help the user set up their playbook (walk through defining positions for key clauses) 2. Proceed with a generic review using widely-accepted commercial standards as the baseline - If proceeding generically, clearly note that the review is based on general commercial standards, not the organization's specific positions ### Step 4: Clause-by-Clause Analysis Analyze the contract systematically, covering at minimum: | Clause Category | Key Review Points | |----------------|-------------------| | **Limitation of Liability** | Cap amount, carveouts, mutual vs. unilateral, consequential damages | | **Indemnification** | Scope, mutual vs. unilateral, cap, IP infringement, data breach | | **IP Ownership** | Pre-existing IP, developed IP, work-for-hire, license grants, assignment | | **Data Protection** | DPA requirement, processing terms, sub-processors, breach notification, cross-border transfers | | **Confidentiality** | Scope, term, carveouts, return/destruction obligations | | **Representations & Warranties** | Scope, disclaimers, survival period | | **Term & Termination** | Duration, renewal, termination for convenience, termination for cause, wind-down | | **Governing Law & Dispute Resolution** | Jurisdiction, venue, arbitration vs. litigation | | **Insurance** | Coverage requirements, minimums, evidence of coverage | | **Assignment** | Consent requirements, change of control, exceptions | | **Force Majeure** | Scope, notification, termination rights | | **Payment Terms** | Net terms, late fees, taxes, price escalation | For each clause, assess against the playbook (or generic standards) and note whether it is present, absent, or unusual. ### Step 5: Flag Deviations Classify each deviation from the playbook using a three-tier system: #### GREEN -- Acceptable - Aligns with or is better than the organization's standard position - Minor variations that are commercially reasonable - No action needed; note for awareness #### YELLOW -- Negotiate - Falls outside standard position but within negotiable range - Common in the market but not the organization's preference - Requires attention but not escalation - **Include**: Specific redline language to bring the term back to standard position - **Include**: Fallback position if the counterparty pushes back - **Include**: Business impact of accepting as-is vs. negotiating #### RED -- Escalate - Falls outside acceptable range or triggers an escalation criterion - Unusual or aggressive terms that pose material risk - Requires senior counsel review, outside counsel involvement, or business decision-maker sign-off - **Include**: Why this is a RED flag (specific risk) - **Include**: What the standard market position looks like - **Include**: Business impact and potential exposure - **Include**: Recommended escalation path ### Step 6: Generate Redline Suggestions For each YELLOW and RED deviation, provide: - **Current language**: Quote the relevant contract text - **Suggested redline**: Specific alternative language - **Rationale**: Brief explanation suitable for sharing with the counterparty - **Priority**: Whether this is a must-have or nice-to-have in negotiation ### Step 7: Business Impact Summary Provide a summary section covering: - **Overall risk assessment**: High-level view of the contract's risk profile - **Top 3 issues**: The most important items to address - **Negotiation strategy**: Recommended approach (which issues to lead with, what to concede) - **Timeline considerations**: Any urgency factors affecting the negotiation approach ### Step 8: CLM Routing (If Connected) If a Contract Lifecycle Management system is connected via MCP: - Recommend the appropriate approval workflow based on contract type and risk level - Suggest the correct routing path (e.g., standard approval, senior counsel, outside counsel) - Note any required approvals based on contract value or risk flags If no CLM is connected, skip this step. ## Output Format Structure the output as: ``` ## Contract Review Summary **Document**: [contract name/identifier] **Parties**: [party names and roles] **Your Side**: [vendor/customer/etc.] **Deadline**: [if provided] **Review Basis**: [Playbook / Generic Standards] ## Key Findings [Top 3-5 issues with severity flags] ## Clause-by-Clause Analysis ### [Clause Category] -- [GREEN/YELLOW/RED] **Contract says**: [summary of the provision] **Playbook position**: [your standard] **Deviation**: [description of gap] **Business impact**: [what this means practically] **Redline suggestion**: [specific language, if YELLOW or RED] [Repeat for each major clause] ## Negotiation Strategy [Recommended approach, priorities, concession candidates] ## Next Steps [Specific actions to take] ``` ## Notes - If the contract is in a language other than English, note this and ask if the user wants a translation or review in the original language - For very long contracts (50+ pages), offer to focus on the most material sections first and then do a complete review - Always remind the user that this analysis should be reviewed by qualified legal counsel before being relied upon for legal decisions
Related in Code Review
gstack
IncludedFast headless browser for QA testing and site dogfooding. Navigate pages, interact with elements, verify state, diff before/after, take annotated screenshots, test responsive layouts, forms, uploads, dialogs, and capture bug evidence. Use when asked to open or test a site, verify a deployment, dogfood a user flow, or file a bug with screenshots. (gstack)
startup-due-diligence
IncludedLegal due diligence review for seed-stage and Series A startups (US, Delaware C-Corp focus). Supports both investor and founder perspectives. Capabilities include: (1) Interactive document review and issue spotting; (2) Document request list generation; (3) Cap table and SAFE/convertible note analysis; (4) Red flag identification with severity ratings; (5) Diligence report generation. TRIGGERS: due diligence, DD, startup investment, cap table review, Series A, seed round, investor diligence, legal review startup, SAFE analysis, convertible note, 409A, founder vesting.
interview-master
IncludedThis skill should be used when the user asks to "generate interview questions", "prepare for interview", "optimize resume", "conduct mock interview", "analyze git commits for resume", "generate resume from code", "review my resume", or mentions interview preparation, career assistance, or extracting project experience from git history. Provides comprehensive interview and career development guidance for both job seekers and interviewers.
fix-issue
IncludedFixes GitHub issues using parallel analysis agents for root cause investigation, code exploration, and regression detection. Reads issue context from gh CLI, searches codebase and memory for related patterns, generates a fix with tests, and links the resolution back to the issue via PR. Includes prevention analysis to avoid recurrence. Use when debugging errors, resolving regressions, fixing bugs, or triaging issues.
sf-apex
IncludedGenerates and reviews Salesforce Apex code with 150-point scoring. TRIGGER when: user writes, reviews, or fixes Apex classes, triggers, test classes, batch/queueable/schedulable jobs, or touches .cls/.trigger files. DO NOT TRIGGER when: LWC JavaScript (use sf-lwc), Flow XML (use sf-flow), SOQL-only queries (use sf-soql), or non-Salesforce code.
swift-development
IncludedComprehensive Swift development for building, testing, and deploying iOS/macOS applications. Use when Claude needs to: (1) Build Swift packages or Xcode projects from command line, (2) Run tests with XCTest or Swift Testing framework, (3) Manage iOS simulators with simctl, (4) Handle code signing, provisioning profiles, and app distribution, (5) Format or lint Swift code with SwiftFormat/SwiftLint, (6) Work with Swift Package Manager (SPM), (7) Implement Swift 6 concurrency patterns (async/await, actors, Sendable), (8) Create SwiftUI views with MVVM architecture, (9) Set up Core Data or SwiftData persistence, or any other Swift/iOS/macOS development tasks.