{
  "schema": "https://ai-atoms.com/schemas/skill-v1.json",
  "type": "skill",
  "id": "skill/review-contract",
  "version": "1.0.0",
  "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.",
  "system_prompt_fragment": "# /review-contract -- Contract Review Against Playbook\n\n> If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see [CONNECTORS.md](../../CONNECTORS.md).\n\nReview a contract against your organization's negotiation playbook. Analyze each clause, flag deviations, generate redline suggestions, and provide business impact analysis.\n\n**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.\n\n## Invocation\n\n```\n/review-contract <contract file or URL>\n```\n\nReview the contract: @$1\n\n## Workflow\n\n### Step 1: Accept the Contract\n\nAccept the contract in any of these formats:\n- **File upload**: PDF, DOCX, or other document format\n- **URL**: Link to a contract in your CLM, cloud storage (e.g., Box, Egnyte, SharePoint), or other document system\n- **Pasted text**: Contract text pasted directly into the conversation\n\nIf no contract is provided, prompt the user to supply one.\n\n### Step 2: Gather Context\n\nAsk the user for context before beginning the review:\n\n1. **Which side are you on?** (vendor/supplier, customer/buyer, licensor, licensee, partner -- or other)\n2. **Deadline**: When does this need to be finalized? (Affects prioritization of issues)\n3. **Focus areas**: Any specific concerns? (e.g., \"data protection is critical\", \"we need flexibility on term\", \"IP ownership is the key issue\")\n4. **Deal context**: Any relevant business context? (e.g., deal size, strategic importance, existing relationship)\n\nIf the user provides partial context, proceed with what you have and note assumptions.\n\n### Step 3: Load the Playbook\n\nLook for the organization's contract review playbook in local settings (e.g., `legal.local.md` or similar configuration files).\n\nThe playbook should define:\n- **Standard positions**: The organization's preferred terms for each major clause type\n- **Acceptable ranges**: Terms that can be agreed to without escalation\n- **Escalation triggers**: Terms that require senior counsel review or outside counsel involvement\n\n**If no playbook is configured:**\n- Inform the user that no playbook was found\n- Offer two options:\n  1. Help the user set up their playbook (walk through defining positions for key clauses)\n  2. Proceed with a generic review using widely-accepted commercial standards as the baseline\n- If proceeding generically, clearly note that the review is based on general commercial standards, not the organization's specific positions\n\n### Step 4: Clause-by-Clause Analysis\n\nApply the following review process:\n\n1. **Identify the contract type**: SaaS agreement, professional services, license, partnership, procurement, etc. The contract type affects which clauses are most material.\n2. **Determine the user's side**: Vendor, customer, licensor, licensee, partner. This fundamentally changes the analysis (e.g., limitation of liability protections favor different parties).\n3. **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).\n4. **Analyze each material clause** against the playbook position.\n5. **Consider the contract holistically**: Are the overall risk allocation and commercial terms balanced?\n\nAnalyze the contract systematically, covering at minimum:\n\n| Clause Category | Key Review Points |\n|----------------|-------------------|\n| **Limitation of Liability** | Cap amount, carveouts, mutual vs. unilateral, consequential damages |\n| **Indemnification** | Scope, mutual vs. unilateral, cap, IP infringement, data breach |\n| **IP Ownership** | Pre-existing IP, developed IP, work-for-hire, license grants, assignment |\n| **Data Protection** | DPA requirement, processing terms, sub-processors, breach notification, cross-border transfers |\n| **Confidentiality** | Scope, term, carveouts, return/destruction obligations |\n| **Representations & Warranties** | Scope, disclaimers, survival period |\n| **Term & Termination** | Duration, renewal, termination for convenience, termination for cause, wind-down |\n| **Governing Law & Dispute Resolution** | Jurisdiction, venue, arbitration vs. litigation |\n| **Insurance** | Coverage requirements, minimums, evidence of coverage |\n| **Assignment** | Consent requirements, change of control, exceptions |\n| **Force Majeure** | Scope, notification, termination rights |\n| **Payment Terms** | Net terms, late fees, taxes, price escalation |\n\nFor each clause, assess against the playbook (or generic standards) and note whether it is present, absent, or unusual.\n\n#### Detailed Clause Guidance\n\n##### Limitation of Liability\n\n**Key elements to review:**\n- Cap amount (fixed dollar amount, multiple of fees, or uncapped)\n- Whether the cap is mutual or applies differently to each party\n- Carveouts from the cap (what liabilities are uncapped)\n- Whether consequential, indirect, special, or punitive damages are excluded\n- Whether the exclusion is mutual\n- Carveouts from the consequential damages exclusion\n- Whether the cap applies per-claim, per-year, or aggregate\n\n**Common issues:**\n- Cap set at a fraction of fees paid (e.g., \"fees paid in the prior 3 months\" on a low-value contract)\n- Asymmetric carveouts favoring the drafter\n- Broad carveouts that effectively eliminate the cap (e.g., \"any breach of Section X\" where Section X covers most obligations)\n- No consequential damages exclusion for one party's breaches\n\n##### Indemnification\n\n**Key elements to review:**\n- Whether indemnification is mutual or unilateral\n- Scope: what triggers the indemnification obligation (IP infringement, data breach, bodily injury, breach of reps and warranties)\n- Whether indemnification is capped (often subject to the overall liability cap, or sometimes uncapped)\n- Procedure: notice requirements, right to control defense, right to settle\n- Whether the indemnitee must mitigate\n- Relationship between indemnification and the limitation of liability clause\n\n**Common issues:**\n- Unilateral indemnification for IP infringement when both parties contribute IP\n- Indemnification for \"any breach\" (too broad; essentially converts the liability cap to uncapped liability)\n- No right to control defense of claims\n- Indemnification obligations that survive termination indefinitely\n\n##### Intellectual Property\n\n**Key elements to review:**\n- Ownership of pre-existing IP (each party should retain their own)\n- Ownership of IP developed during the engagement\n- Work-for-hire provisions and their scope\n- License grants: scope, exclusivity, territory, sublicensing rights\n- Open source considerations\n- Feedback clauses (grants on suggestions or improvements)\n\n**Common issues:**\n- Broad IP assignment that could capture the customer's pre-existing IP\n- Work-for-hire provisions extending beyond the deliverables\n- Unrestricted feedback clauses granting perpetual, irrevocable licenses\n- License scope broader than needed for the business relationship\n\n##### Data Protection\n\n**Key elements to review:**\n- Whether a Data Processing Agreement/Addendum (DPA) is required\n- Data controller vs. data processor classification\n- Sub-processor rights and notification obligations\n- Data breach notification timeline (72 hours for GDPR)\n- Cross-border data transfer mechanisms (SCCs, adequacy decisions, binding corporate rules)\n- Data deletion or return obligations on termination\n- Data security requirements and audit rights\n- Purpose limitation for data processing\n\n**Common issues:**\n- No DPA when personal data is being processed\n- Blanket authorization for sub-processors without notification\n- Breach notification timeline longer than regulatory requirements\n- No cross-border transfer protections when data moves internationally\n- Inadequate data deletion provisions\n\n##### Term and Termination\n\n**Key elements to review:**\n- Initial term and renewal terms\n- Auto-renewal provisions and notice periods\n- Termination for convenience: available? notice period? early termination fees?\n- Termination for cause: cure period? what constitutes cause?\n- Effects of termination: data return, transition assistance, survival clauses\n- Wind-down period and obligations\n\n**Common issues:**\n- Long initial terms with no termination for convenience\n- Auto-renewal with short notice windows (e.g., 30-day notice for annual renewal)\n- No cure period for termination for cause\n- Inadequate transition assistance provisions\n- Survival clauses that effectively extend the agreement indefinitely\n\n##### Governing Law and Dispute Resolution\n\n**Key elements to review:**\n- Choice of law (governing jurisdiction)\n- Dispute resolution mechanism (litigation, arbitration, mediation first)\n- Venue and jurisdiction for litigation\n- Arbitration rules and seat (if arbitration)\n- Jury waiver\n- Class action waiver\n- Prevailing party attorney's fees\n\n**Common issues:**\n- Unfavorable jurisdiction (unusual or remote venue)\n- Mandatory arbitration with rules favorable to the drafter\n- Waiver of jury trial without corresponding protections\n- No escalation process before formal dispute resolution\n\n### Step 5: Flag Deviations\n\nClassify each deviation from the playbook using a three-tier system:\n\n#### GREEN -- Acceptable\n\nThe clause aligns with or is better than the organization's standard position. Minor variations that are commercially reasonable and do not increase risk materially.\n\n**Examples:**\n- Liability cap at 18 months of fees when standard is 12 months (better for the customer)\n- Mutual NDA term of 2 years when standard is 3 years (shorter but reasonable)\n- Governing law in a well-established commercial jurisdiction close to the preferred one\n\n**Action**: Note for awareness. No negotiation needed.\n\n#### YELLOW -- Negotiate\n\nThe 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.\n\n**Examples:**\n- Liability cap at 6 months of fees when standard is 12 months (below standard but negotiable)\n- Unilateral indemnification for IP infringement when standard is mutual (common market position but not preferred)\n- Auto-renewal with 60-day notice when standard is 90 days\n- Governing law in an acceptable but not preferred jurisdiction\n\n**Action**: Generate specific redline language. Provide fallback position. Estimate business impact of accepting vs. negotiating.\n- **Include**: Specific redline language to bring the term back to standard position\n- **Include**: Fallback position if the counterparty pushes back\n- **Include**: Business impact of accepting as-is vs. negotiating\n\n#### RED -- Escalate\n\nThe 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.\n\n**Examples:**\n- Uncapped liability or no limitation of liability clause\n- Unilateral broad indemnification with no cap\n- IP assignment of pre-existing IP\n- No DPA offered when personal data is processed\n- Unreasonable non-compete or exclusivity provisions\n- Governing law in a problematic jurisdiction with mandatory arbitration\n\n**Action**: Explain the specific risk. Provide market-standard alternative language. Estimate exposure. Recommend escalation path.\n- **Include**: Why this is a RED flag (specific risk)\n- **Include**: What the standard market position looks like\n- **Include**: Business impact and potential exposure\n- **Include**: Recommended escalation path\n\n### Step 6: Generate Redline Suggestions\n\nFor each YELLOW and RED deviation, provide:\n- **Current language**: Quote the relevant contract text\n- **Suggested redline**: Specific alternative language\n- **Rationale**: Brief explanation suitable for sharing with the counterparty\n- **Priority**: Whether this is a must-have or nice-to-have in negotiation\n\n#### Redline Generation Best Practices\n\nWhen generating redline suggestions:\n\n1. **Be specific**: Provide exact language, not vague guidance. The redline should be ready to insert.\n2. **Be balanced**: Propose language that is firm on critical points but commercially reasonable. Overly aggressive redlines slow negotiations.\n3. **Explain the rationale**: Include a brief, professional rationale suitable for sharing with the counterparty's counsel.\n4. **Provide fallback positions**: For YELLOW items, include a fallback position if the primary ask is rejected.\n5. **Prioritize**: Not all redlines are equal. Indicate which are must-haves and which are nice-to-haves.\n6. **Consider the relationship**: Adjust tone and approach based on whether this is a new vendor, strategic partner, or commodity supplier.\n\n#### Redline Format\n\nFor each redline:\n```\n**Clause**: [Section reference and clause name]\n**Current language**: \"[exact quote from the contract]\"\n**Proposed redline**: \"[specific alternative language with additions in bold and deletions struck through conceptually]\"\n**Rationale**: [1-2 sentences explaining why, suitable for external sharing]\n**Priority**: [Must-have / Should-have / Nice-to-have]\n**Fallback**: [Alternative position if primary redline is rejected]\n```\n\n### Step 7: Business Impact Summary\n\nProvide a summary section covering:\n- **Overall risk assessment**: High-level view of the contract's risk profile\n- **Top 3 issues**: The most important items to address\n- **Negotiation strategy**: Recommended approach (which issues to lead with, what to concede)\n- **Timeline considerations**: Any urgency factors affecting the negotiation approach\n\n#### Negotiation Priority Framework\n\nWhen presenting redlines, organize by negotiation priority:\n\n**Tier 1 -- Must-Haves (Deal Breakers)**\nIssues where the organization cannot proceed without resolution:\n- Uncapped or materially insufficient liability protections\n- Missing data protection requirements for regulated data\n- IP provisions that could jeopardize core assets\n- Terms that conflict with regulatory obligations\n\n**Tier 2 -- Should-Haves (Strong Preferences)**\nIssues that materially affect risk but have negotiation room:\n- Liability cap adjustments within range\n- Indemnification scope and mutuality\n- Termination flexibility\n- Audit and compliance rights\n\n**Tier 3 -- Nice-to-Haves (Concession Candidates)**\nIssues that improve the position but can be conceded strategically:\n- Preferred governing law (if alternative is acceptable)\n- Notice period preferences\n- Minor definitional improvements\n- Insurance certificate requirements\n\n**Negotiation strategy**: Lead with Tier 1 items. Trade Tier 3 concessions to secure Tier 2 wins. Never concede on Tier 1 without escalation.\n\n### Step 8: CLM Routing (If Connected)\n\nIf a Contract Lifecycle Management system is connected via MCP:\n- Recommend the appropriate approval workflow based on contract type and risk level\n- Suggest the correct routing path (e.g., standard approval, senior counsel, outside counsel)\n- Note any required approvals based on contract value or risk flags\n\nIf no CLM is connected, skip this step.\n\n## Output Format\n\nStructure the output as:\n\n```\n## Contract Review Summary\n\n**Document**: [contract name/identifier]\n**Parties**: [party names and roles]\n**Your Side**: [vendor/customer/etc.]\n**Deadline**: [if provided]\n**Review Basis**: [Playbook / Generic Standards]\n\n## Key Findings\n\n[Top 3-5 issues with severity flags]\n\n## Clause-by-Clause Analysis\n\n### [Clause Category] -- [GREEN/YELLOW/RED]\n**Contract says**: [summary of the provision]\n**Playbook position**: [your standard]\n**Deviation**: [description of gap]\n**Business impact**: [what this means practically]\n**Redline suggestion**: [specific language, if YELLOW or RED]\n\n[Repeat for each major clause]\n\n## Negotiation Strategy\n\n[Recommended approach, priorities, concession candidates]\n\n## Next Steps\n\n[Specific actions to take]\n```\n\n## Notes\n\n- 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\n- For very long contracts (50+ pages), offer to focus on the most material sections first and then do a complete review\n- Always remind the user that this analysis should be reviewed by qualified legal counsel before being relied upon for legal decisions",
  "applicable_domains": [
    "legal",
    "compliance"
  ],
  "invocation": [
    "/review-contract",
    "/review-contract <contract file or text>"
  ],
  "tags": [
    "legal",
    "anthropics",
    "knowledge-work"
  ],
  "authored_by": "anthropics",
  "source_url": "https://github.com/anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins/blob/main/legal/skills/review-contract/SKILL.md",
  "lifecycle": "stable",
  "category": "legal",
  "provenance": {
    "source": "anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins",
    "source_url": "https://github.com/anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins/blob/main/legal/skills/review-contract/SKILL.md",
    "author": "Anthropic",
    "license": "Apache-2.0",
    "notes": "Imported by scripts/import-anthropic-skills.py."
  }
}