本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

yc-saas-drafter

Drafts a customized Customer Agreement starting from the Y Combinator standard form SaaS template. Tailors the agreement through structured intake questions covering fee structure, data handling, ML rights, implementation services, and more. Applies 18 always-on defaults that transform the raw YC form into a professional starting point (renamed to "Customer Agreement", data privacy section added, warranty restructured, consolidated SLA/support exhibit, etc.). Produces a clean .docx and a lawyer-facing memo explaining every change from the YC standard. Use when user says "draft a SaaS agreement", "YC SaaS", "startup SaaS contract", "customer agreement", "SaaS subscription agreement", or "I need a SaaS agreement starting from the YC form". Also trigger when the user is a startup founder discussing SaaS contracting, even if they don't mention YC specifically.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(7)

  • SKILL.md9.3 KB
  • assets/YC_Form_SaaS_Agreement.docx36.6 KB
  • LICENSE1.1 KB
  • README.md2.9 KB
  • references/decision-matrix.md16.4 KB
  • references/intake-questions.md12.8 KB
  • references/supplementary-language.md15.9 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Output Requirements

The final .docx must read like a lawyer drafted it. The output must contain:

  • Zero YC drafting annotations (*[Note:...]*, *[OPTIONAL:...]*)
  • Zero placeholder scaffolding ([OPTIONAL] markers, option guides)
  • Zero unfilled template brackets — except deliberate [TBD — description] markers for values the user couldn't provide, documented in the memo

The agreement title is "Customer Agreement" — NOT "SaaS Services Agreement".

If any annotation, note, or non-TBD bracket appears in the output, the draft is not ready. Fix it before delivering.


Workflow

Step 1: Load References

Before asking any questions, read all three reference files:

  • references/intake-questions.md — 15 question groups with branching and defaults
  • references/decision-matrix.md — maps answers to YC template actions (18 always-apply defaults, 12 conditional decisions, variable substitutions, raise-with-lawyer flags)
  • references/supplementary-language.md — pre-written clause text anchored by ID (always-apply blocks and conditional blocks)

The decision matrix tells you WHAT to change. The supplementary language gives you the EXACT TEXT to insert. Do not improvise contract language — if the matrix says to insert #DATA-PRIVACY, use the verbatim text from supplementary-language.md. The ONE exception is Order Form Service Fees, where the LLM composes from fee pattern examples.

Step 2: Run Intake

Follow the questions in references/intake-questions.md in order. Apply branching logic (e.g., skip implementation fee if no implementation, skip pilot details if no pilot, skip service capacity if flat pricing).

Key principles:

  • Offer defaults but let the user override
  • Use [TBD — description] for any value the user can't provide yet
  • Confirm all decisions in a summary before proceeding (template at the end of intake-questions.md)
  • Do NOT proceed to document assembly without user confirmation

Step 3: Produce the Agreement

Read the YC template from assets/YC_Form_SaaS_Agreement.docx.

Apply modifications in this order:

First — Always-apply defaults (decision-matrix.md Section A, items A1-A18):

  1. Rename Order Form title → "Order Form Number One"
  2. Rename "SaaS Services Agreement" → "Customer Agreement" throughout
  3. Update preamble date year
  4. Section 1.1 SLA reference — remove [OPTIONAL], always on
  5. Section 1.2 — change "Exhibit C" to "Exhibit B"
  6. Section 2.2 — strip export controls note (keep the language)
  7. Section 2.3 — delete customer indemnity clause + note entirely
  8. Section 2.5 — insert #DATA-PRIVACY (new section)
  9. Section 3.3 — remove optional framing (keep analytics language)
  10. Section 6 — restructure into 6.1/6.2/6.3: insert #WARRANTY-REMEDY, #CUSTOMER-WARRANTY, #BETA-DISCLAIMER
  11. Section 7 — remove optional note, remove "United States" from patent scope
  12. Section 8 — strip negotiation note
  13. Section 9 — replace YC press release language with #MARKETING-DEFAULT
  14. Exhibits — replace B + C with #EXHIBIT-B-CONSOLIDATED, delete Exhibit C
  15. Strip ALL remaining annotations and notes

Second — Conditional decisions (decision-matrix.md Section B, items B1-B12): Walk through each conditional decision. For each, look up the intake answer and apply the specified action. When the matrix references supplementary language (e.g., #NO-AUTO-RENEWAL), use the verbatim text.

Third — Variable substitutions (decision-matrix.md Section C): Replace all YC placeholders with intake values. Any field not collected → [TBD — description].

Fourth — Cleanup:

  • Remove any surviving annotations, brackets, or drafting guidance
  • Remove empty paragraphs left by deleted sections
  • Verify section numbering is sequential (especially after §2.5 addition and §6 restructure into 6.1/6.2/6.3)
  • Verify no non-TBD brackets remain

DocX formatting notes:

  • Exhibit B credit table MUST be a proper Word table, not inline text
  • Exhibit B communication channels MUST be a proper Word table
  • Section 6 subsections (6.1, 6.2, 6.3) need proper heading formatting
  • Section 6.3 (Beta Products) must be ALL CAPS

Produce the output as a .docx file: [CompanyName]_[CustomerName]_Customer_Agreement_DRAFT.docx

Use available document creation tools (native DocX skill, python-docx, or equivalent) to produce a professionally formatted Word document.

Step 4: Produce the Lawyer Memo

Create a markdown memo alongside the agreement: [CompanyName]_[CustomerName]_Customer_Agreement_Memo.md

The memo must include:

1. Deal Summary — One paragraph: who, what, fee structure, term.

2. Template Base — "This agreement is based on the Y Combinator standard form SaaS Agreement with the following modifications."

3. Always-Applied Defaults — Itemized list of every always-apply change (A1-A18), with brief rationale for each. Example:

  • "Renamed to 'Customer Agreement' (professional standard)"
  • "Removed 'United States' from IP indemnity patent scope (standard redline)"
  • "Added Section 2.5 data privacy and security provisions (essential for modern SaaS)"
  • "Added Section 6.2 customer warranty and Section 6.3 beta products disclaimer"

4. Intake-Driven Decisions — Each conditional decision and what was selected. Example:

  • "Section 3.2: Customer owns derivative data (bracketed language retained)"
  • "Section 5.1: Auto-renewal with 60-day notice"

5. Items Requiring Attorney Review — This is critical. For each raise-with-lawyer flag (decision-matrix.md Section D), include the flag text verbatim. These are:

  • DPA recommendation (almost always needed)
  • Implementation services IP ownership (if applicable)
  • Derivative data ownership (if company retains)
  • ML training on customer content (if applicable)
  • Data retention timeline confirmation

6. TBD Items — Every [TBD — description] in the document, listed so the founder knows what to fill in before sending.

Step 5: Deliver

Provide the user with:

  1. The clean .docx Customer Agreement
  2. The lawyer memo
  3. Brief summary: key decisions, TBD count, attorney review items

Decision Points Quick Reference

#LocationWhat's Decided
B1Order FormServices description (from product intake)
B2Order FormFee structure + service capacity (8 fee types)
B3Order Form + Exhibit AImplementation services: include or remove
B4Order FormPilot period: include or remove
B5§2.1Distributed software license: include or remove
B6§3.2Derivative data: customer owns or company retains
B7§5.1Auto-renewal: yes (30/60/90 day notice) or no
B8§5.2Data retention period on termination
B9§9Governing law: state selection
B10§9Marketing formulation: default, more, or less
B11Exhibit BSLA availability: 99.9% / 99.95% / 99.99%
B12Exhibit BSupport details: email, phone, hours, tool

Supplementary Language Reference

AnchorClauseType
#DATA-PRIVACY§2.5 Data privacy & securityAlways
#WARRANTY-REMEDY§6.1 Exclusive warranty remedyAlways
#CUSTOMER-WARRANTY§6.2 Customer warrantyAlways
#BETA-DISCLAIMER§6.3 Beta products (ALL CAPS)Always
#MARKETING-DEFAULT§9 Marketing languageAlways
#EXHIBIT-B-CONSOLIDATEDExhibit B: SLA + SupportAlways
#NO-AUTO-RENEWAL§5.1 Manual renewal replacementConditional
#FEE-EXAMPLESOrder Form fee patterns (8 types)Conditional
#EXPANDED-DATA-RESTRICTIONSSensitive data protectionsConditional
#ML-TRAININGML model training rightsConditional
#ML-FEDERATEDFederated learning carve-outConditional

What This Skill Does NOT Do

  • Does not draft DPAs. Flags DPA need in memo; use dpa-drafter separately.
  • Does not handle professional services agreements. If the deal has significant services beyond implementation, use msa-drafter.
  • Does not review or redline incoming contracts. This drafts from a template. For review, use a review skill.
  • Does not invent clause language. Every modification is a deletion, variable substitution, or verbatim insertion from supplementary-language.md. Exception: Order Form Service Fees, composed from fee pattern examples.
  • Does not resolve attorney review items. Flags them in the memo for counsel to address.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Creates an Agent Authority Charter for enterprise or regulated AI agents before deployment. Use this Skill when a user needs to define what an AI agent is allowed to do, who delegated authority to it, what actions are permitted or prohibited, when human approval is required, what evidence must be preserved, and how the agent can be suspended, revoked, or escalated.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8632026年10月3日 更新

EU AI Act Knowledge Engine — authoritative regulatory Q&A grounded in 70 official EU source documents (including the 2026 Commission draft guidelines on Art. 6 high-risk classification — general principles, Annex I, Annex III). Answers any question about the AI Act with article-level citations from the full regulation text, Commission guidelines, EDPB/EDPS opinions, codes of practice, harmonised standards, FRIA guides, incident templates, and sector-specific guidance. This skill should be used when the user asks about the "EU AI Act", "AI Act regulation", "Regulation 2024/1689", "KI-Verordnung", asks to "explain an AI Act article", "what does Article X say", "AI Act requirements", "AI Act penalties", "AI Act timeline", "GPAI obligations", "high-risk AI", "prohibited AI practices", "AI Act and GDPR", "fundamental rights impact assessment", "AI Act standards", "AI Act national implementation", "AI literacy", "serious incident reporting", "Digital Omnibus", "AI regulatory sandbox", or any question about EU artificial intelligence regulation. Also triggers on German terms: "KI-Gesetz", "KI-Verordnung", "Hochrisiko-KI", "KI-Kompetenz", "Grundrechte-Folgenabschaetzung", "GPAI-Verhaltenskodex". For assessment workflows that produce a classification decision rather than a knowledge answer, offer to run a structured risk-tier classification in-session.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8632026年10月3日 更新

This skill builds a structured audit trail of an AI-assisted task: what the tool was asked to do, what materials it was given, what it produced, how the output was verified, and what was ultimately relied upon. It documents the workflow for supervision and later review without ruling on privilege or disclosure, so the record stays accurate rather than self-serving.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8632026年10月3日 更新

Use this skill when the user wants an AI governance, legal-risk, privacy, compliance, procurement, or vendor-risk review of an internal AI use case, an AI product feature, an LLM workflow, or a third-party AI vendor. The skill asks intake and clarifying questions first when facts or evidence are missing, identifies required documentation and missing evidence, maps the use case to AI governance frameworks and applicable legal domains, and produces a preliminary or final governance review with scorecards, findings, owners, remediation actions, and follow-up questions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8632026年10月3日 更新

Turn an interpretive-ambiguity audit of a legal text — contract, statute, regulation, or judicial opinion — into a polished deliverable. Produces a multi-page website (default), a single-page interactive site, a Microsoft Word document, a PowerPoint deck, or a LaTeX/PDF. Use whenever a user has a stress-test result, ambiguity audit, or "where will this be litigated" scenarios and wants to publish, present, or share them. Triggers on "publish the audit," "make a report from this," "turn this into a website / deck / brief / Word doc," "make a Netlify site," "build slides of these ambiguities," "render the scenarios," "package this stress test," "produce a LaTeX version," and similar. Pairs with the ambiguity-stress-test skill (the underlying analysis) but works on any structured or semi-structured ambiguity analysis. Visual design is opinionated but the user can override colors, fonts, and brand label. Most formats need Python and a writable filesystem; single-file HTML works where the host has neither.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8632026年10月3日 更新

Adversarially stress-tests a legal text — a contract, statute, regulation, or judicial opinion — for interpretive ambiguity: it finds the seams where the people governed by it will later disagree about what it means and turns each into a concrete dispute scenario with both sides' arguments, the likely outcome, and a fix. Use it whenever someone wants to pressure-test, red-team, audit, or find weak spots, loopholes, gaps, ambiguities, or drafting problems in a legal document; whenever a drafter wants to tighten a contract, statute, regulation, or opinion before it issues; whenever a litigator wants to mine an opinion or contract for arguments; or whenever someone hands over a legal text and asks where it will be fought over or for issue-spotting. Trigger it for contract review, statutory-ambiguity analysis, judicial-opinion scope analysis, and drafting QA — even if the user never says "stress-test" or "ambiguity."

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8632026年10月3日 更新

lawve-ai のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する