Clause analysis

Clause Analysis

Perform a deep-dive analysis of specific contract clauses for "$ARGUMENTS". Interpret legal effect, compare to market standards, identify hidden risks, and suggest alternative language where needed.

Note: AI-generated legal content does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney.

Prerequisites

Check that .metapowers/legal/$ARGUMENTS/00-assess.md exists. If it does not exist, stop and tell the user:

"Run an Assess skill first (e.g. /legal:risk-assessment $ARGUMENTS) to generate the prerequisite assessment artifact."

If the user passes --skip-checks, bypass this check and log the skip to .metapowers/legal/$ARGUMENTS/skip-log.md with a timestamp and the reason "Prerequisite check skipped for clause-analysis".

Process

1. Read inputs:

   • Read .metapowers/legal/$ARGUMENTS/00-assess.md for risk and jurisdiction context
   • Identify the clause(s) to analyze from user input (quote, section reference, or topic)

2. Interpret the clause's legal effect:

   • What obligations does this clause create for each party?
   • What rights does it grant or limit?
   • What triggers activate the clause (conditions precedent, events of default)?
   • What are the consequences of breach or non-compliance?

3. Compare to market standard language:

   • Read plugins/legal/shared/contract-template.md for baseline comparison
   • Is this clause more favorable, neutral, or less favorable than market standard?
   • Which specific elements deviate from standard practice?

4. Identify hidden obligations or risks:

   • Triggers — conditions that activate obligations (notice requirements, time limits)
   • Conditions — prerequisites that must be met for rights to apply
   • Exceptions — carve-outs that narrow protections
   • Cascading effects — how this clause interacts with other provisions
   • Ambiguity — terms that could be interpreted against either party

5. Score risk (1-5):

   • 1 — Minimal risk — standard language, well-balanced, no hidden issues
   • 2 — Low risk — minor deviations from standard, easily addressed
   • 3 — Moderate risk — notable concerns requiring negotiation or revision
   • 4 — High risk — significant exposure, strongly favors counterparty
   • 5 — Critical risk — unacceptable terms, potential for material harm

6. Suggest alternative language:

   • If risk score is 3 or above, provide redline suggestions
   • Draft replacement language that is more balanced
   • Explain why the alternative is preferable

7. Flag enforceability concerns by jurisdiction:

   • Identify jurisdictions where the clause may be unenforceable
   • Note any statutory overrides that nullify contractual terms
   • Flag unconscionability or public policy concerns

8. Write the artifact to .metapowers/legal/$ARGUMENTS/02-review.md with frontmatter:

   ---
   description: Clause analysis for $ARGUMENTS
   ---
   

   Include sections:

   • Clause Text — the original clause(s) being analyzed
   • Legal Effect — obligations, rights, triggers, and consequences
   • Market Comparison — how the clause compares to standard language
   • Hidden Risks — identified triggers, conditions, exceptions, and ambiguities
   • Risk Score — score (1-5) with detailed explanation
   • Suggested Alternatives — redline language where applicable
   • Enforceability Notes — jurisdiction-specific concerns

Output

The clause analysis written to .metapowers/legal/$ARGUMENTS/02-review.md. Present a summary to the user highlighting:

• Risk score and primary risk factors
• Key deviations from market standard language
• Recommended alternative language (if applicable)
• Jurisdictions where enforceability may be challenged