Contract review

Contract Review

Review the contract for "$ARGUMENTS". Analyze each section against best practices, identify missing standard clauses, flag unfavorable terms, and score overall risk.

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 contract-review".

Process

1. Read inputs:

   • Read .metapowers/legal/$ARGUMENTS/00-assess.md for risk and jurisdiction context
   • Read plugins/legal/shared/contract-template.md for standard contract provisions
   • Read the contract from the source provided by the user (file path, URL, or inline text)

2. Check each section against best practices:

   • Compare contract structure to the standard template
   • Verify each clause uses clear, unambiguous language
   • Confirm defined terms are used consistently throughout
   • Check that cross-references are accurate

3. Identify missing standard clauses:

   • Indemnification — mutual or one-sided indemnification obligations
   • Limitation of liability — liability cap and exclusions
   • Intellectual property — ownership, licensing, and assignment provisions
   • Confidentiality — scope, duration, and exceptions
   • Termination — rights, notice periods, and consequences

4. Flag unfavorable terms:

   • Unlimited liability — no cap on damages or liability exposure
   • Broad indemnification — disproportionate indemnification obligations
   • Unilateral amendments — one party can modify terms without consent
   • Auto-renewal traps — automatic renewal with punitive exit terms
   • Excessive exclusivity — unreasonable exclusivity scope or duration
   • One-sided termination — asymmetric termination rights

5. Score overall risk:

   • Low — contract follows best practices with minor improvements suggested
   • Medium — contract has notable gaps or moderately unfavorable terms requiring negotiation
   • High — contract contains significant risk exposure or multiple missing critical clauses

6. Provide section-by-section commentary:

   • For each contract section, note: status (acceptable/needs revision/missing), specific issues found, and concrete recommendations

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

   ---
   description: Contract review for $ARGUMENTS
   ---
   

   Include sections:

   • Contract Overview — parties, type, effective date, term
   • Section-by-Section Analysis — commentary per contract section
   • Missing Clauses — standard clauses not present in the contract
   • Unfavorable Terms — flagged terms with risk explanation
   • Overall Risk Score — Low/Medium/High with justification
   • Recommendations — prioritized action items for revision

Output

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

• Overall risk score and top contributing factors
• Missing standard clauses that should be added
• Most critical unfavorable terms requiring immediate attention
• Top 3 recommended revisions