Track and update action item status from natural language updates like 'Seanのメールには返信しておいた' or 'Lu対応予定'. Integrates with daily-comms-ops workflow. Use when managing action items across communication channels.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Professional contract review skill for business agreements including NDAs, MSAs, SLAs, SOWs, and software license agreements. Provides systematic clause-by-clause analysis, risk assessment with quantified scoring, red flag detection, and negotiation guidance. Use this skill when reviewing vendor contracts, partnership agreements, service agreements, or any business contract requiring risk evaluation and negotiation preparation. Triggers include "review this contract", "analyze this NDA", "check this agreement for risks", "prepare for contract negotiation", or when evaluating terms and conditions.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
实测评分 未实测
查看安装方法安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。
This skill provides a structured methodology for reviewing business contracts from a risk and negotiation perspective. It helps identify unfavorable terms, quantify risks, and prepare negotiation strategies.
Important Disclaimer: This skill provides business-focused contract analysis, NOT legal advice. Always consult qualified legal counsel for binding decisions and jurisdiction-specific requirements.
pip install PyPDF2 for PDF document support| Type | Abbreviation | Primary Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Non-Disclosure Agreement | NDA | Confidentiality, information protection |
| Master Service Agreement | MSA | Overall service terms, liability allocation |
| Statement of Work / Service Agreement | SOW | Scope, deliverables, acceptance criteria |
| Service Level Agreement | SLA | Performance metrics, remedies, credits |
| Software License Agreement | License | Usage rights, restrictions, compliance |
Purpose: Quickly assess the contract and determine the appropriate review depth. Duration: 15-30 minutes
Identify the contract type and gather basic information:
## Contract Classification
**Contract Type**: [NDA / MSA / SOW / SLA / License / Other: ___]
**Contract Title**:
**Parties**:
- Party A (typically our organization):
- Party B (counterparty):
**Effective Date**:
**Term**:
**Value/Amount**: [if applicable]
**Reviewer**:
**Review Date**:
Perform a rapid scan for the following 10 critical red flags. If 3+ flags are triggered, escalate to Deep Review.
| # | Red Flag | Check | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Unlimited liability exposure | Look for missing caps or "unlimited" language | [ ] |
| 2 | One-sided indemnification | Indemnity only flows one direction | [ ] |
| 3 | Automatic renewal with difficult opt-out | Notice periods >60 days, evergreen clauses | [ ] |
| 4 | Unilateral amendment rights | Other party can change terms without consent | [ ] |
| 5 | Problematic governing law | Unfavorable jurisdiction, foreign courts | [ ] |
| 6 | Broad IP assignment | Assigns rights beyond deliverables | [ ] |
| 7 | Missing limitation on consequential damages | No carve-out for indirect damages | [ ] |
| 8 | Excessive termination penalties | Penalties exceed reasonable costs | [ ] |
| 9 | Non-compete or exclusivity restrictions | Limits on business operations | [ ] |
| 10 | Inadequate data protection provisions | GDPR/privacy gaps, data breach handling | [ ] |
Red Flags Triggered: ___ / 10
Based on the red flag count and contract value/risk:
| Criteria | Quick Review | Standard Review | Deep Review |
|---|---|---|---|
| Red flags | 0-1 | 2-3 | 4+ |
| Contract value | <$50K | $50K-$500K | >$500K |
| Strategic importance | Low | Medium | High |
| Renewal/existing | Routine renewal | New vendor | Strategic partnership |
Selected Review Depth: [ ] Quick [ ] Standard [ ] Deep
Purpose: Systematically review all contract provisions using appropriate checklists. Duration: 1-4 hours (varies by contract complexity)
Load the following references based on contract type:
references/clause_analysis_guide.md - Clause-specific analysis criteriareferences/red_flag_patterns.md - Detailed red flag patternsReview each clause category systematically. For each clause, assess:
| Clause | Key Questions | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Definitions | Are key terms clearly defined? Any ambiguous terms? | |
| Scope/Purpose | Is the scope clearly bounded? Any scope creep risks? | |
| Term & Renewal | Auto-renewal? Notice period? Renewal terms? | |
| Termination | Termination rights balanced? Termination consequences clear? |
| Clause | Key Questions | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Limitation of Liability | Cap amount? Excluded damages? Carve-outs? | |
| Indemnification | Mutual or one-sided? Scope of indemnity? Caps? | |
| Insurance | Required coverage types? Minimum amounts? Certificate requirements? | |
| Warranties | Express vs. implied? Warranty disclaimers? Remedies? |
| Clause | Key Questions | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Payment Terms | Payment timing? Late fees? Currency? | |
| Performance/SLA | Metrics defined? Measurement method? Remedies/credits? | |
| Acceptance | Acceptance criteria? Testing period? Deemed acceptance? | |
| Change Management | Change process? Pricing for changes? |
| Clause | Key Questions | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Confidentiality | Definition scope? Duration? Return/destruction? | |
| Data Protection | GDPR compliance? Data processor terms? Breach notification? | |
| IP Rights | Ownership clear? License grants appropriate? Work product rights? | |
| Governing Law | Jurisdiction acceptable? Dispute resolution mechanism? |
For NDAs: Refer to references/clause_analysis_guide.md Section 5.1
For MSAs: Refer to references/clause_analysis_guide.md Section 5.2
For SOWs: Refer to references/clause_analysis_guide.md Section 5.3
For SLAs: Refer to references/clause_analysis_guide.md Section 5.4
For License Agreements: Refer to references/clause_analysis_guide.md Section 5.5
For each issue identified, document using this format:
### Finding #[ID]: [Brief Title]
**Severity**: [Critical / High / Medium / Low]
**Clause Reference**: Section/Article [X.X]
**Clause Text**: "[Relevant excerpt]"
**Issue**:
[Describe the problem with this clause]
**Risk**:
[Explain the potential business/legal/financial impact]
**Recommendation**:
[Proposed action - accept, negotiate, or reject]
**Alternative Language**:
[If applicable, suggest revised wording]
Purpose: Quantify and prioritize identified risks. Duration: 30-60 minutes
Load references/risk_assessment_framework.md for detailed scoring criteria.
For each finding from Workflow 2, assign scores:
Likelihood Score (1-5):
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 1 | Rare - Unlikely to occur |
| 2 | Unlikely - Could occur but not expected |
| 3 | Possible - Might occur |
| 4 | Likely - Expected to occur |
| 5 | Almost Certain - Will occur |
Impact Score (1-5):
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 1 | Negligible - Minimal impact |
| 2 | Minor - Some impact, easily managed |
| 3 | Moderate - Noticeable impact |
| 4 | Major - Significant impact |
| 5 | Severe - Critical impact, potential deal-breaker |
Risk Score = Likelihood × Impact (range: 1-25)
Map all findings to the risk matrix:
IMPACT
1 2 3 4 5
+----+----+----+----+----+
5 | M | H | H | C | C |
+----+----+----+----+----+
4 | M | M | H | H | C |
L +----+----+----+----+----+
I 3 | L | M | M | H | H |
K +----+----+----+----+----+
E 2 | L | L | M | M | H |
L +----+----+----+----+----+
I 1 | L | L | L | M | M |
H +----+----+----+----+----+
O
O L = Low M = Medium H = High C = Critical
D
Aggregate findings into an Overall Contract Risk Score (0-100):
Overall Score = Σ(Finding Risk Scores) × Weight Factor / Maximum Possible Score × 100
Weight Factors:
- Critical findings: 3x
- High findings: 2x
- Medium findings: 1x
- Low findings: 0.5x
Interpretation:
| Score Range | Risk Level | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|
| 0-25 | Low | Acceptable with minor negotiation |
| 26-50 | Moderate | Negotiate key terms before signing |
| 51-75 | High | Significant negotiation required; escalate to legal |
| 76-100 | Critical | Do not sign without major revisions; consider alternatives |
Create a summary of top 10 risks:
| Rank | Finding ID | Title | L | I | Score | Category |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | ||||||
| ... |
Purpose: Develop negotiation strategy with prioritized requests and alternatives. Duration: 30-60 minutes
Load references/negotiation_strategies.md for alternative clause language library.
Sort findings into negotiation categories:
Issues that would prevent signing if not resolved:
| Finding ID | Issue | Minimum Acceptable Resolution |
|---|---|---|
Issues with significant risk that should be negotiated:
| Finding ID | Issue | Preferred Resolution | Acceptable Alternative |
|---|---|---|---|
Lower priority items that improve the contract but aren't essential:
| Finding ID | Issue | Requested Change |
|---|---|---|
Standard terms acceptable without modification.
For each negotiation item, prepare:
Reference references/negotiation_strategies.md for clause-specific alternatives.
Consider these negotiation factors:
## Negotiation Summary
**Overall Negotiation Priority**: [High / Medium / Low]
### Must Change (Deal Breakers)
1. [Issue summary] - [Required resolution]
### Should Change (High Priority)
1. [Issue summary] - [Preferred resolution]
### Could Change (Nice to Have)
1. [Issue summary] - [Requested change]
### Key Talking Points
-
-
### Anticipated Pushback
| Our Request | Expected Response | Counter-Strategy |
|-------------|-------------------|------------------|
| | | |
Purpose: Generate comprehensive review report for decision-makers. Duration: 30 minutes
Load assets/review_report_template.md as the output structure.
Create a 1-page executive summary including:
Transfer all findings from Workflow 2 into the report template, organized by severity.
Add the risk matrix and summary table from Workflow 3.
Include the negotiation summary and alternative language from Workflow 4.
Provide a clear recommendation:
| Recommendation | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Approve | Overall risk score <25, no Critical/High findings |
| Conditional Approve | Risk score 25-50, High findings have acceptable alternatives |
| Revise & Resubmit | Risk score 51-75, multiple High findings require changes |
| Reject | Risk score >75, deal breakers present, or fundamental misalignment |
Define clear next actions:
## Next Steps
1. [ ] [Action item with owner and due date]
2. [ ] [Action item with owner and due date]
3. [ ] [Action item with owner and due date]
**Legal Review Required**: [Yes / No]
**Escalation Required**: [Yes / No] - [To whom]
| Severity | Definition | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | Deal breaker; unacceptable risk | Unlimited liability, IP assignment of all company IP |
| High | Significant risk requiring attention | One-sided indemnification, unfavorable jurisdiction |
| Medium | Notable issue but manageable | Missing SLA credits, short cure periods |
| Low | Minor concern, nice to improve | Non-standard payment terms, minor definitional issues |
Use the analysis script for automated preliminary analysis:
# Basic analysis
python scripts/analyze_contract.py contract.pdf --output report.md
# With contract type specification
python scripts/analyze_contract.py contract.pdf --type nda --output nda_review.md
# Full analysis with all options
python scripts/analyze_contract.py contract.pdf \
--type msa \
--party-name "Our Company Inc." \
--output detailed_review.md \
--verbose
The script performs:
Note on Risk Scoring: The script uses a simplified additive formula (Critical=20, High=10, Medium=5, Low=2 points per finding, capped at 100). For the full Likelihood × Impact weighted risk matrix, use Workflow 3 manually.
Note: Automated analysis is a starting point. Always perform manual review using the full workflow for final assessment.
This skill produces the following outputs:
| Output | Format | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Analysis Report | Markdown (.md) | Comprehensive contract review report with risk assessment |
| Risk Score | 0-100 integer | Quantified overall contract risk level |
| Red Flag List | Table | Prioritized list of identified issues with recommendations |
| Clause Coverage | Checklist | Summary of present/missing standard clauses |
| Negotiation Summary | Structured list | Deal breakers, high priority items, and acceptable terms |
Report Sections:
| Script | Path | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
analyze_contract.py | scripts/analyze_contract.py | Automated preliminary contract analysis |
pattern_definitions.py | scripts/pattern_definitions.py | Red flag patterns and clause detection rules |
| Reference | Path | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Clause Analysis Guide | references/clause_analysis_guide.md | Detailed clause-specific analysis criteria |
| Red Flag Patterns | references/red_flag_patterns.md | Comprehensive red flag catalog |
| Risk Assessment Framework | references/risk_assessment_framework.md | Risk scoring methodology |
| Contract Review Methodology | references/contract_review_methodology.md | Process deep dive |
| Negotiation Strategies | references/negotiation_strategies.md | Alternative clause library |
| Asset | Path | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Review Report Template | assets/review_report_template.md | Report output template |
| Clause Checklist | assets/clause_checklist.md | Interactive review checklist |
还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。
无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。
还没有评论。来写第一条吧。
Track and update action item status from natural language updates like 'Seanのメールには返信しておいた' or 'Lu対応予定'. Integrates with daily-comms-ops workflow. Use when managing action items across communication channels.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
AI活用提案の専門コンサルタントスキル。LLM・AIエージェントの活用事例知識を基に、業界別、部門別、シーン別に最適なAI導入提案を行います。システム化、業務改善、効率化を得意とし、具体的な活用事例、期待効果、導入ステップを含む実践的な提案を提供します。Use when proposing AI/LLM adoption strategies for specific industries, departments, or business scenarios.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Generate AI-powered BPO service proposals for Japanese companies in the US market. Use when creating outsourcing proposals with AI service menus, ROI estimation, implementation roadmaps, and bilingual (JA/EN) proposal documents for 在米日系企業向けAI実装.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
AI(LLM)が生成した日本語テキストの「AI臭」を検出・診断し、人間らしい文章にリライトするスキル。 Use when: 「AIっぽい文章を直して」「人間らしくリライトして」「AI臭を消して」「この文章をもっと自然にして」 「テキストのAI感を減らして」「機械っぽさを取りたい」 "make this sound more human", "remove AI tone", "humanize this text", "detect if this is AI-generated". 6つのAI特有パターン(視覚的マーカー、単調なリズム、マニュアル的構成、非コミット姿勢、抽象語の濫用、 定型メタファー)を正規表現ベースで検出し、0-100のAI臭スコアを算出。3つの人間化技法 (バランスを崩す・客観を崩す・論理を崩す)でリライトを実行する。 Note: 検出スクリプトは日本語テキスト専用。英語テキストの場合はClaude自身がreferences/を参照して分析・リライトする。
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Generate audit-ready internal control design documents from As-Is business process inventories. Produces control IDs, assertion mappings, procedures, SoD analysis, KPIs, materiality thresholds, and implementation roadmaps. Use when building internal controls for new audit engagements, SOX/J-SOX compliance, or process improvement initiatives.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Review audit-related documents (control design documents, bottleneck analyses, requirements definitions, etc.) for quality, scoring them 0-100 with a severity-rated findings list. Use when reviewing audit documents, checking control design quality, or verifying cross-document consistency. Supports documents governed by US GAAP, IFRS, or J-GAAP.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。