agentsclimarketplace

Review contract

Skill alebgl77/claude-inc/skills/review-contract

Clause-by-clause contract review — inventories key clauses (term, termination, liability cap, indemnity, IP, payment, confidentiality, governing law, auto-renewal), flags deviations from market-standard positions with RED/YELLOW/GREEN severity and verbatim quotes, drafts redline language, and sets negotiation priority. Use when the user says 'review this contract', 'what's wrong with this MSA', 'can we sign this as-is', or pastes any agreement for analysis.From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add alebgl77/claude-inc --skill review-contract

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

  • 8 stars8 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

SKILL.md

5.2 KB, ~1.2k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Review Contract — Contract Reviewer

"Review any contract"

Works on pasted contract text or a file. No playbook required: deviations are measured against explicit market-standard positions, so every judgment is visible and overridable.

When to use

  • "Review this MSA before tomorrow's call" — any contract that deserves more than a skim
  • "Can we sign this vendor agreement as-is?" — a go/no-go read with fixes attached
  • "What would you push back on here?" — building a negotiation position from scratch
  • "They sent their redline back — does it hurt?" — re-review of a revised draft
  • Standalone NDAs move faster through triage-nda; use this skill when confidentiality terms sit inside a bigger deal

Workflow

  1. Ingest the contract (pasted text or file path). Record parties, which side we are, contract type, effective date, and any deadline mentioned.
  2. Inventory the nine key clauses: term, termination, liability cap, indemnity, IP ownership/license, payment, confidentiality, governing law and disputes, auto-renewal. A missing clause is a finding, not a blank — mark it MISSING.
  3. Benchmark each clause against market-standard positions, stated explicitly (e.g., liability capped at 12 months' fees and mutual; indemnity limited to third-party IP, bodily injury, and confidentiality claims; termination for cause with 30-day cure; auto-renewal with a 30-day-or-longer opt-out; no unilateral mid-term price increases).
  4. Assign severity per finding — RED: dealbreaker or uncapped exposure, do not sign as-is; YELLOW: off-market but fixable with targeted language; GREEN: market or better. Quote the operative text verbatim under every RED and YELLOW.
  5. Draft a redline for every RED and YELLOW: replacement language ready to paste into the document, not a description of what to change.
  6. Order negotiation priorities: REDs first, ranked by exposure; then YELLOWs ranked by cost-to-fix, marking which are trade material ("give to get").
  7. Assemble the report in the output format. When working in a folder, save it beside the contract as <contract-name>-review.md and report the path.

Output format

CONTRACT REVIEW — <contract name> — <date>
Parties: <counterparty> / <us> (we are the <customer/vendor/licensor/...>)
Type: <MSA / SaaS / services / license>   Deadline: <date or none>

CLAUSE INVENTORY
| Clause          | Present? | Severity | vs. market standard  |
|-----------------|----------|----------|----------------------|
| Term            | §<n>     | GREEN    | <one line>           |
| Termination     | §<n>     | YELLOW   | <one line>           |
| Liability cap   | MISSING  | RED      | uncapped by silence  |
| Indemnity       | §<n>     | <sev>    | <one line>           |
| IP              | §<n>     | <sev>    | <one line>           |
| Payment         | §<n>     | <sev>    | <one line>           |
| Confidentiality | §<n>     | <sev>    | <one line>           |
| Governing law   | §<n>     | <sev>    | <one line>           |
| Auto-renewal    | §<n>     | <sev>    | <one line>           |

FINDINGS
[RED] <clause> — <business impact, one line>
  Quote:   "<verbatim clause text>"
  Redline: "<paste-ready replacement language>"
[YELLOW] <clause> — <business impact, one line>
  Quote:   "<verbatim clause text>"
  Redline: "<paste-ready replacement language>"
[GREEN] <clauses at market or better — one line, no action>

NEGOTIATION PRIORITY
1. <RED finding> — must fix; walk away if refused
2. <RED finding> — must fix; fallback: <fallback position>
3. <YELLOW finding> — push; trade against <concession we can give>

*Issue-spotting support, not legal advice — engage counsel for binding decisions.*

Quality bar

  • All nine key clauses inventoried; MISSING treated as a finding with severity
  • Every RED and YELLOW quotes the clause verbatim — no paraphrase-only flags
  • Every RED and YELLOW ships a paste-ready redline, not "negotiate this"
  • Each severity justified in one line of plain business impact
  • Negotiation order ranks by exposure and leverage, not page order
  • Market-standard baseline stated wherever a deviation is flagged

Example

Invocation: "Review this SaaS agreement — we're the customer, they want it signed Friday." (contract pasted)

Produces: A review flagging RED on one-way indemnity ("Customer shall indemnify Provider against any and all claims arising from use of the Services") with a mutual, capped redline; YELLOW on a 12-month auto-renewal with a 90-day opt-out window; GREEN on payment and confidentiality. Negotiation priority puts indemnity first with a fallback cap at 12 months' fees, and marks the opt-out window as trade material.

Issue-spotting support, not legal advice — engage counsel for binding decisions.

What ships with it

Read from the repository

Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.

Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most review quality skills give in ~1.2k tokens

Counted across 1,048 of the 1,783 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-07

  • Ask questions one at a timein 81 of 1048, across 64 files
  • Provide a recommended answer for each questionin 73 of 1048, across 50 files
  • Explore the codebase instead of asking answerable questionsin 66 of 1048, across 42 files
  • Resolve dependencies between decisions one-by-onein 42 of 1048, across 17 files
  • Interview the user relentlessly about the planin 38 of 1048, across 13 files
  • Order findings by severityin 31 of 1048
  • Resolve each branch of the decision treein 27 of 1048, across 5 files
  • Run a grilling sessionin 26 of 1048, across 5 files
  • Update CONTEXT.md immediately when a term is resolvedin 26 of 1048, across 11 files
  • Propose precise canonical terms for vague languagein 25 of 1048, across 7 files
  • Create documentation files lazilyin 24 of 1048, across 5 files
  • Assign severity to every findingin 24 of 1048

Said here and by no other author read

  • inventory the nine key clauses
  • mark missing clauses as findings
  • benchmark clauses against market-standard positions
  • assign RED YELLOW GREEN severity per finding
  • quote operative text verbatim for RED and YELLOW
  • draft paste-ready redline language

Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 326,679. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.