SkillAgentSearch skills...

review-contract

Review a contract against your organization's negotiation playbook — flag deviations, generate redlines, provide business impact analysis

Install / Use

npx skills add anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins --skill review-contract

Installs into whichever agent you are using.

About this skill
📄

SKILL.md

Installable skill definition

Quality Score

97/100

Category

Legal

Supported Platforms

Zed

Our assessment of review-contract

review-contract scores 97/100 on our quality scale, 10th of 102 Legal skills we index (top 10%).

Its SKILL.md is 16 KB long, well organised into 32 sections with 3 code examples: a thorough specification that gives an agent plenty to work with.

With 25,526 GitHub stars, it is one of the more widely adopted skills in the catalogue.

Substance
30/30
Structure
18/20
Description
15/15
Adoption
19/20
Freshness
15/15

Maintenance, license and trust

  • The repository was last updated 3 days ago, so review-contract is actively maintained.
  • It is released under the Apache-2.0 license, a permissive license that allows use, modification and commercial use with attribution.
  • Its trust signals score 100/100, with no cautions. These come from repository metadata, not a code audit — read the skill file before letting an agent act on it.

review-contract compared with similar skills

All 4 of these similar skills score higher than review-contract; compare them before choosing.

SkillScoreStarsUpdatedFormat
review-contract (this skill)by anthropics9725.5k3d agoSKILL.md
algorithmic-artby anthropics100177.9k5d agoSKILL.md
pptxby anthropics100177.9k5d agoSKILL.md
designby nextlevelbuilder100130.2k6d agoSKILL.md
ui-ux-pro-maxby nextlevelbuilder100130.2k6d agoSKILL.md

Frequently asked questions

How do I install review-contract?
Run npx skills add anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins --skill review-contract. The install tabs above show the steps for each supported agent.
Which AI agents does review-contract work with?
It is written for Zed, as a SKILL.md file. Other agents that read the same format can often use it too.
Is review-contract safe to use?
It is Apache-2.0-licensed and scores 100/100 on trust signals. Skills are instructions an agent will follow, so read the file before installing it and do not approve commands you do not understand.
Is review-contract still maintained?
The repository was last updated 3 days ago, so review-contract is actively maintained.

name: review-contract description: Review a contract against your organization's negotiation playbook — flag deviations, generate redlines, provide business impact analysis. Use when reviewing vendor or customer agreements, when you need clause-by-clause analysis against standard positions, or when preparing a negotiation strategy with prioritized redlines and fallback positions. argument-hint: "<contract file or text>"

/review-contract -- Contract Review Against Playbook

If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see CONNECTORS.md.

Review a contract against your organization's negotiation playbook. Analyze each clause, flag deviations, generate redline suggestions, and provide business impact analysis.

Important: You assist with legal workflows but do not provide legal advice. All analysis should be reviewed by qualified legal professionals before being relied upon.

Invocation

/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

Apply the following review process:

  1. Identify the contract type: SaaS agreement, professional services, license, partnership, procurement, etc. The contract type affects which clauses are most material.
  2. Determine the user's side: Vendor, customer, licensor, licensee, partner. This fundamentally changes the analysis (e.g., limitation of liability protections favor different parties).
  3. Read the entire contract before flagging issues. Clauses interact with each other (e.g., an uncapped indemnity may be partially mitigated by a broad limitation of liability).
  4. Analyze each material clause against the playbook position.
  5. Consider the contract holistically: Are the overall risk allocation and commercial terms balanced?

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.

Detailed Clause Guidance

Limitation of Liability

Key elements to review:

  • Cap amount (fixed dollar amount, multiple of fees, or uncapped)
  • Whether the cap is mutual or applies differently to each party
  • Carveouts from the cap (what liabilities are uncapped)
  • Whether consequential, indirect, special, or punitive damages are excluded
  • Whether the exclusion is mutual
  • Carveouts from the consequential damages exclusion
  • Whether the cap applies per-claim, per-year, or aggregate

Common issues:

  • Cap set at a fraction of fees paid (e.g., "fees paid in the prior 3 months" on a low-value contract)
  • Asymmetric carveouts favoring the drafter
  • Broad carveouts that effectively eliminate the cap (e.g., "any breach of Section X" where Section X covers most obligations)
  • No consequential damages exclusion for one party's breaches
Indemnification

Key elements to review:

  • Whether indemnification is mutual or unilateral
  • Scope: what triggers the indemnification obligation (IP infringement, data breach, bodily injury, breach of reps and warranties)
  • Whether indemnification is capped (often subject to the overall liability cap, or sometimes uncapped)
  • Procedure: notice requirements, right to control defense, right to settle
  • Whether the indemnitee must mitigate
  • Relationship between indemnification and the limitation of liability clause

Common issues:

  • Unilateral indemnification for IP infringement when both parties contribute IP
  • Indemnification for "any breach" (too broad; essentially converts the liability cap to uncapped liability)
  • No right to control defense of claims
  • Indemnification obligations that survive termination indefinitely
Intellectual Property

Key elements to review:

  • Ownership of pre-existing IP (each party should retain their own)
  • Ownership of IP developed during the engagement
  • Work-for-hire provisions and their scope
  • License grants: scope, exclusivity, territory, sublicensing rights
  • Open source considerations
  • Feedback clauses (grants on suggestions or improvements)

Common issues:

  • Broad IP assignment that could capture the customer's pre-existing IP
  • Work-for-hire provisions extending beyond the deliverables
  • Unrestricted feedback clauses granting perpetual, irrevocable licenses
  • License scope broader than needed for the business relationship
Data Protection

Key elements to review:

  • Whether a Data Processing Agreement/Addendum (DPA) is required
  • Data controller vs. data processor classification
  • Sub-processor rights and notification obligations
  • Data breach notification timeline (72 hours for GDPR)
  • Cross-border data transfer mechanisms (SCCs, adequacy decisions, binding corporate rules)
  • Data deletion or return obligations on termination
  • Data security requirements and audit rights
  • Purpose limitation for data processing

Common issues:

  • No DPA when personal data is being processed
  • Blanket authorization for sub-processors without notification
  • Breach notification timeline longer than regulatory requirements
  • No cross-border transfer protections when data moves internationally
  • Inadequate data deletion provisions
Term and Termination

Key elements to review:

  • Initial term and renewal terms
  • Auto-renewal provisions and notice periods
  • Termination for convenience: available? notice period? early termination fees?
  • Termination for cause: cure period? what constitutes cause?
  • Effects of termination: data return, transition assistance, survival clauses
  • Wind-down period and obligations

Common issues:

  • Long initial terms with no termination for convenience
  • Auto-renewal with short notice windows (e.g., 30-day notice for annual renewal)
  • No cure period for termination for cause
  • Inadequate transition assistance provisions
  • Survival clauses that effectively extend the agreement indefinitely
Governing Law and Dispute Resolution

Key elements to review:

  • Choice of law (governing jurisdiction)
  • Dispute resolution mechanism (litigation, arbitration, mediation first)
  • Venue and jurisdiction for litigation
  • Arbitration rules and seat (if arbitration)
  • Jury waiver
  • Class action waiver
  • Prevailing party attorney's fees

Common issues:

  • Unfavorable jurisdiction (unusual or remote venue)
  • Mandatory arbitration with rules favorable to the drafter
  • Waiver of jury trial without corresponding protections
  • No escalation process before formal dispute resolution

Step 5: Flag Deviations

Classify each deviation from the playbook using a three-tier system:

GREEN -- Acceptable

The clause aligns with or is better than the organization's standard position. Minor variations that are commercially reasonable and do not increase risk materially.

Examples:

  • Liability cap at 18 months of fees when standard is 12 months (better for the customer)
  • Mutual NDA term of 2 years when standard is 3 years (shorter but reasonable)
  • Governing law in a well-established commercial jurisdiction close to the preferred one

Action: Note for awareness. No negotiation needed.

YELLOW -- Negotiate

The clause falls outside the standard position but within a negotiable range. The term is common in the market but not the organization's preference. Requires attention and likely negotiation, but not escalation.

Examples:

  • Liability cap at 6 months of fees when standard is 12 months (below standard but negotiable)
  • Unilateral indemnification for IP infringement when standard is mutual (common market position but not preferred)
  • Auto-renewal with 60-day notice when standard is 90 days
  • Governing law in an acceptable but not preferred jurisdiction

Action: Generate specific redline language. Provide fallback position. Estimate business impact of accepting vs. negotiating.

  • 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

The clause falls outside acceptable range, triggers a defined escalation criterion, or poses material risk. Requires senior counsel review, outside counsel involvement, or business decision-maker sign-off.

Examples:

  • Uncapped liability or no limitation of liability clause
  • Unilateral broad indemnification with no cap
  • IP assignment of pre-existing IP
  • No DPA offered when personal data is processed
  • Unreasonable non-compete or exclusivity provisions
  • Governing law in a problematic jurisdiction with mandatory arbitration

Action: Explain the specific risk. Provide market-standard alternative language. Estimate exposure. Recommend escalation path.

  • 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

Truncated for display — read the full file on GitHub.

Related Skills

View on GitHub
GitHub Stars25.5k
CategoryLegal
Updated3d ago
Forks3.0k

Languages

Python

Trust signals

100/100

From repository metadata: license, adoption, age and documentation. Not a code audit — see the Safety scan above for what the skill file itself contains.

No cautions