{
  "schema": "https://ai-atoms.com/schemas/skill-v1.json",
  "type": "skill",
  "id": "skill/triage-nda",
  "version": "1.0.0",
  "name": "triage-nda",
  "description": "Rapidly triage an incoming NDA and classify it as GREEN (standard approval), YELLOW (counsel review), or RED (full legal review). Use when a new NDA arrives from sales or business development, when screening for embedded non-solicits, non-competes, or missing carveouts, or when deciding whether an NDA can be signed under standard delegation.",
  "system_prompt_fragment": "# /triage-nda -- NDA Pre-Screening\n\n> If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see [CONNECTORS.md](../../CONNECTORS.md).\n\nTriage the NDA: @$1\n\nRapidly triage incoming NDAs against standard screening criteria. Classify the NDA for routing: standard approval, counsel review, or full legal review.\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/triage-nda\n```\n\n## Workflow\n\n### Step 1: Accept the NDA\n\nAccept the NDA in any format:\n- **File upload**: PDF, DOCX, or other document format\n- **URL**: Link to the NDA in a document system\n- **Pasted text**: NDA text pasted directly\n\nIf no NDA is provided, prompt the user to supply one.\n\n### Step 2: Load NDA Playbook\n\nLook for NDA screening criteria in local settings (e.g., `legal.local.md`).\n\nThe NDA playbook should define:\n- Mutual vs. unilateral requirements\n- Acceptable term lengths\n- Required carveouts\n- Prohibited provisions\n- Organization-specific requirements\n\n**If no NDA playbook is configured:**\n- Proceed with reasonable market-standard defaults\n- Note clearly that defaults are being used\n- Defaults applied:\n  - Mutual obligations required (unless the organization is only disclosing)\n  - Term: 2-3 years standard, up to 5 years for trade secrets\n  - Standard carveouts required: independently developed, publicly available, rightfully received from third party, required by law\n  - No non-solicitation or non-compete provisions\n  - No residuals clause (or narrowly scoped if present)\n  - Governing law in a reasonable commercial jurisdiction\n\n### Step 3: Quick Screen\n\nEvaluate the NDA against each screening criterion systematically.\n\n#### 1. Agreement Structure\n- [ ] **Type identified**: Mutual NDA, Unilateral (disclosing party), or Unilateral (receiving party)\n- [ ] **Appropriate for context**: Is the NDA type appropriate for the business relationship? (e.g., mutual for exploratory discussions, unilateral for one-way disclosures)\n- [ ] **Standalone agreement**: Confirm the NDA is a standalone agreement, not a confidentiality section embedded in a larger commercial agreement\n\n#### 2. Definition of Confidential Information\n- [ ] **Reasonable scope**: Not overbroad (avoid \"all information of any kind whether or not marked as confidential\")\n- [ ] **Marking requirements**: If marking is required, is it workable? (Written marking within 30 days of oral disclosure is standard)\n- [ ] **Exclusions present**: Standard exclusions defined (see Standard Carveouts below)\n- [ ] **No problematic inclusions**: Does not define publicly available information or independently developed materials as confidential\n\n#### 3. Obligations of Receiving Party\n- [ ] **Standard of care**: Reasonable care or at least the same care as for own confidential information\n- [ ] **Use restriction**: Limited to the stated purpose\n- [ ] **Disclosure restriction**: Limited to those with need to know who are bound by similar obligations\n- [ ] **No onerous obligations**: No requirements that are impractical (e.g., encrypting all communications, maintaining physical logs)\n\n#### 4. Standard Carveouts\nAll of the following carveouts should be present:\n- [ ] **Public knowledge**: Information that is or becomes publicly available through no fault of the receiving party\n- [ ] **Prior possession**: Information already known to the receiving party before disclosure\n- [ ] **Independent development**: Information independently developed without use of or reference to confidential information\n- [ ] **Third-party receipt**: Information rightfully received from a third party without restriction\n- [ ] **Legal compulsion**: Right to disclose when required by law, regulation, or legal process (with notice to the disclosing party where legally permitted)\n\n#### 5. Permitted Disclosures\n- [ ] **Employees**: Can share with employees who need to know\n- [ ] **Contractors/advisors**: Can share with contractors, advisors, and professional consultants under similar confidentiality obligations\n- [ ] **Affiliates**: Can share with affiliates (if needed for the business purpose)\n- [ ] **Legal/regulatory**: Can disclose as required by law or regulation\n\n#### 6. Term and Duration\n- [ ] **Agreement term**: Reasonable period for the business relationship (1-3 years is standard)\n- [ ] **Confidentiality survival**: Obligations survive for a reasonable period after termination (2-5 years is standard; trade secrets may be longer)\n- [ ] **Not perpetual**: Avoid indefinite or perpetual confidentiality obligations (exception: trade secrets, which may warrant longer protection)\n\n#### 7. Return and Destruction\n- [ ] **Obligation triggered**: On termination or upon request\n- [ ] **Reasonable scope**: Return or destroy confidential information and all copies\n- [ ] **Retention exception**: Allows retention of copies required by law, regulation, or internal compliance/backup policies\n- [ ] **Certification**: Certification of destruction is reasonable; sworn affidavit is onerous\n\n#### 8. Remedies\n- [ ] **Injunctive relief**: Acknowledgment that breach may cause irreparable harm and equitable relief may be appropriate is standard\n- [ ] **No pre-determined damages**: Avoid liquidated damages clauses in NDAs\n- [ ] **Not one-sided**: Remedies provisions apply equally to both parties (in mutual NDAs)\n\n#### 9. Problematic Provisions to Flag\n- [ ] **No non-solicitation**: NDA should not contain employee non-solicitation provisions\n- [ ] **No non-compete**: NDA should not contain non-compete provisions\n- [ ] **No exclusivity**: NDA should not restrict either party from entering similar discussions with others\n- [ ] **No standstill**: NDA should not contain standstill or similar restrictive provisions (unless M&A context)\n- [ ] **No residuals clause** (or narrowly scoped): If a residuals clause is present, it should be limited to information retained in unaided memory of individuals and should not apply to trade secrets or patented information\n- [ ] **No IP assignment or license**: NDA should not grant any intellectual property rights\n- [ ] **No audit rights**: Unusual in standard NDAs\n\n#### 10. Governing Law and Jurisdiction\n- [ ] **Reasonable jurisdiction**: A well-established commercial jurisdiction\n- [ ] **Consistent**: Governing law and jurisdiction should be in the same or related jurisdictions\n- [ ] **No mandatory arbitration** (in standard NDAs): Litigation is generally preferred for NDA disputes\n\n### Step 4: Classify\n\nBased on the screening results, assign a classification:\n\n#### GREEN -- Standard Approval\n\n**All** of the following must be true:\n- NDA is mutual (or unilateral in the appropriate direction)\n- All standard carveouts are present\n- Term is within standard range (1-3 years, survival 2-5 years)\n- No non-solicitation, non-compete, or exclusivity provisions\n- No residuals clause, or residuals clause is narrowly scoped\n- Reasonable governing law jurisdiction\n- Standard remedies (no liquidated damages)\n- Permitted disclosures include employees, contractors, and advisors\n- Return/destruction provisions include retention exception for legal/compliance\n- Definition of confidential information is reasonably scoped\n\n**Routing**: Approve via standard delegation of authority. No counsel review required.\n- **Action**: Proceed to signature with standard delegation of authority\n\n#### YELLOW -- Counsel Review Needed\n\n**One or more** of the following are present, but the NDA is not fundamentally problematic:\n- Definition of confidential information is broader than preferred but not unreasonable\n- Term is longer than standard but within market range (e.g., 5 years for agreement term, 7 years for survival)\n- Missing one standard carveout that could be added without difficulty\n- Residuals clause present but narrowly scoped to unaided memory\n- Governing law in an acceptable but non-preferred jurisdiction\n- Minor asymmetry in a mutual NDA (e.g., one party has slightly broader permitted disclosures)\n- Marking requirements present but workable\n- Return/destruction lacks explicit retention exception (likely implied but should be added)\n- Unusual but non-harmful provisions (e.g., obligation to notify of potential breach)\n\n**Routing**: Flag specific issues for counsel review. Counsel can likely resolve with minor redlines in a single review pass.\n- **Action**: Counsel can likely resolve in a single review pass\n\n#### RED -- Significant Issues\n\n**One or more** of the following are present:\n- **Unilateral when mutual is required** (or wrong direction for the relationship)\n- **Missing critical carveouts** (especially independent development or legal compulsion)\n- **Non-solicitation or non-compete provisions** embedded in the NDA\n- **Exclusivity or standstill provisions** without appropriate business context\n- **Unreasonable term** (10+ years, or perpetual without trade secret justification)\n- **Overbroad definition** that could capture public information or independently developed materials\n- **Broad residuals clause** that effectively creates a license to use confidential information\n- **IP assignment or license grant** hidden in the NDA\n- **Liquidated damages or penalty provisions**\n- **Audit rights** without reasonable scope or notice requirements\n- **Highly unfavorable jurisdiction** with mandatory arbitration\n- **The document is not actually an NDA** (contains substantive commercial terms, exclusivity, or other obligations beyond confidentiality)\n\n**Routing**: Full legal review required. Do not sign. Requires negotiation, counterproposal with the organization's standard form NDA, or rejection.\n- **Action**: Do not sign; requires negotiation or counterproposal\n\n### Step 5: Generate Triage Report\n\nOutput a structured report:\n\n```\n## NDA Triage Report\n\n**Classification**: [GREEN / YELLOW / RED]\n**Parties**: [party names]\n**Type**: [Mutual / Unilateral (disclosing) / Unilateral (receiving)]\n**Term**: [duration]\n**Governing Law**: [jurisdiction]\n**Review Basis**: [Playbook / Default Standards]\n\n## Screening Results\n\n| Criterion | Status | Notes |\n|-----------|--------|-------|\n| Mutual Obligations | [PASS/FLAG/FAIL] | [details] |\n| Definition Scope | [PASS/FLAG/FAIL] | [details] |\n| Term | [PASS/FLAG/FAIL] | [details] |\n| Standard Carveouts | [PASS/FLAG/FAIL] | [details] |\n| [etc.] | | |\n\n## Issues Found\n\n### [Issue 1 -- YELLOW/RED]\n**What**: [description]\n**Risk**: [what could go wrong]\n**Suggested Fix**: [specific language or approach]\n\n[Repeat for each issue]\n\n## Recommendation\n\n[Specific next step: approve, send for review with specific notes, or reject/counter]\n\n## Next Steps\n\n1. [Action item 1]\n2. [Action item 2]\n```\n\n### Step 6: Routing Suggestion\n\nBased on the classification, recommend the appropriate next step:\n\n| Classification | Recommended Action | Typical Timeline |\n|---|---|---|\n| GREEN | Approve and route for signature per delegation of authority | Same day |\n| YELLOW | Send to designated reviewer with specific issues flagged | 1-2 business days |\n| RED | Engage counsel for full review; prepare counterproposal or standard form | 3-5 business days |\n\nFor YELLOW and RED classifications:\n- Identify the specific person or role that should review (if the organization has defined routing rules)\n- Include a brief summary of issues suitable for the reviewer to quickly understand the key points\n- If the organization has a standard form NDA, recommend sending it as a counterproposal for RED-classified NDAs\n\n## Common NDA Issues and Standard Positions\n\n### Issue: Overbroad Definition of Confidential Information\n**Standard position**: Confidential information should be limited to non-public information disclosed in connection with the stated purpose, with clear exclusions.\n**Redline approach**: Narrow the definition to information that is marked or identified as confidential, or that a reasonable person would understand to be confidential given the nature of the information and circumstances of disclosure.\n\n### Issue: Missing Independent Development Carveout\n**Standard position**: Must include a carveout for information independently developed without reference to or use of the disclosing party's confidential information.\n**Risk if missing**: Could create claims that internally-developed products or features were derived from the counterparty's confidential information.\n**Redline approach**: Add standard independent development carveout.\n\n### Issue: Non-Solicitation of Employees\n**Standard position**: Non-solicitation provisions do not belong in NDAs. They are appropriate in employment agreements, M&A agreements, or specific commercial agreements.\n**Redline approach**: Delete the provision entirely. If the counterparty insists, limit to targeted solicitation (not general recruitment) and set a short term (12 months).\n\n### Issue: Broad Residuals Clause\n**Standard position**: Resist residuals clauses. If required, limit to: (a) general ideas, concepts, know-how, or techniques retained in the unaided memory of individuals who had authorized access; (b) explicitly exclude trade secrets and patentable information; (c) does not grant any IP license.\n**Risk if too broad**: Effectively grants a license to use the disclosing party's confidential information for any purpose.\n\n### Issue: Perpetual Confidentiality Obligation\n**Standard position**: 2-5 years from disclosure or termination, whichever is later. Trade secrets may warrant protection for as long as they remain trade secrets.\n**Redline approach**: Replace perpetual obligation with a defined term. Offer a trade secret carveout for longer protection of qualifying information.\n\n## Notes\n\n- If the document is not actually an NDA (e.g., it's labeled as an NDA but contains substantive commercial terms), flag this immediately as a RED and recommend full contract review instead\n- For NDAs that are part of a larger agreement (e.g., confidentiality section in an MSA), note that the broader agreement context may affect the analysis\n- Always note that this is a screening tool and counsel should review any items the user is uncertain about",
  "applicable_domains": [
    "legal",
    "compliance"
  ],
  "invocation": [
    "/triage-nda",
    "/triage-nda <NDA file or text>"
  ],
  "tags": [
    "legal",
    "anthropics",
    "knowledge-work"
  ],
  "authored_by": "anthropics",
  "source_url": "https://github.com/anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins/blob/main/legal/skills/triage-nda/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/triage-nda/SKILL.md",
    "author": "Anthropic",
    "license": "Apache-2.0",
    "notes": "Imported by scripts/import-anthropic-skills.py."
  }
}