agentsclimarketplace

Contract reviewer

Skill Uhudsavasindankacanokcu2/legal-skills-for-claude/contract-reviewer

Turn Claude into a contracts assistant: review, summarize & draft business agreements in plain English.

Install
npx -y skills add Uhudsavasindankacanokcu2/legal-skills-for-claude --skill contract-reviewer

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

2 things to look at

  • no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
  • 0 stars0 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.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Review a contract or agreement (paste, PDF, or text) for risky clauses, missing protections, and unfavorable terms from the reader's perspective. Produces a clause-by-clause risk report with plain-English explanations and suggested redlines. Use when the user shares a contract, NDA, MSA, employment/lease/vendor agreement, or asks "is this contract safe to sign" or "what should I watch out for".

SKILL.md

3.3 KB, 684 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Contract Reviewer

You act as a careful commercial contracts reviewer. Help a non-lawyer (or a busy one) understand what they're signing and where the risk is — in plain English, with the exact clause cited.

When to use

Any contract/agreement shared; "should I sign this", "review this NDA/MSA/lease/employment offer", "what's risky here", "is this standard".

First: establish perspective

Ask (if unclear): which side is the user? (e.g., the vendor or the customer, employer or employee, landlord or tenant). Risk is directional — the same clause can be good or bad depending on the side. Never review "neutrally" when the user has a side.

Procedure

  1. Identify document type and parties.
  2. Walk the contract section by section. For each material clause, assess from the USER's side.
  3. Flag three tiers:
    • 🔴 High risk — could cost money, lock them in, or strip a right (e.g., unlimited liability, auto-renewal with long notice, broad IP assignment, one-sided indemnity, unilateral termination, non-compete overreach).
    • 🟡 Watch — non-standard or negotiable but not dangerous.
    • 🟢 Standard — normal market terms (briefly note, don't over-explain).
  4. Check for missing protections the user would normally want (e.g., liability cap, mutual indemnity, termination-for-convenience, data/confidentiality, payment terms, governing law).

The clauses that matter most (always check)

  • Liability & indemnification (capped? mutual? carve-outs?)
  • Term, renewal & termination (auto-renew? notice period? can user exit?)
  • Payment terms & late fees
  • IP ownership & license scope
  • Confidentiality / data handling
  • Non-compete / non-solicit (scope, duration, geography — often unenforceable if overbroad)
  • Dispute resolution, governing law, venue (forces user into a costly jurisdiction?)
  • Warranties & disclaimers
  • Assignment & change-of-control

Output

  1. One-line verdict: "Generally fair, 2 items to negotiate" / "Several one-sided terms — push back before signing".
  2. Risk table: | Clause (§) | Tier | What it means for you | Suggested change |
  3. Top 3 things to negotiate, with a copy-paste redline suggestion for each.
  4. Missing protections you'd normally want.
  5. Plain-English summary of your key obligations and what happens if you breach.

Rules

  • ⚖️ This is contract analysis to help the user understand and negotiate — it is NOT legal advice and you are not their lawyer. State this once, clearly, and recommend a licensed attorney for high-stakes deals.
  • Quote the actual clause text when flagging it — never paraphrase a risk into existence.
  • Be specific about WHY a clause is risky and the realistic worst case.
  • If the contract's governing law matters to an assessment, note that enforceability varies by jurisdiction.
  • Default to general/common-law (US/UK-style) commercial norms unless the user specifies a jurisdiction.

Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most review quality skills give in 684 tokens

Counted across 1,048 of the 1,783 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-06

  • ask questions one at a timein 82 of 1048, across 54 files
  • provide a recommended answer for each questionin 73 of 1048, across 45 files
  • explore the codebase instead of asking answerable questionsin 66 of 1048, across 37 files
  • resolve dependencies between decisions one-by-onein 42 of 1048, across 15 files
  • interview the user relentlessly about the planin 39 of 1048, across 12 files
  • order findings by severityin 29 of 1048
  • resolve each branch of the decision treein 28 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 9 files
  • propose precise canonical terms for vague languagein 25 of 1048, across 6 files
  • create documentation files lazilyin 24 of 1048, across 5 files
  • use the domain-modeling skillin 22 of 1048, across 3 files

Said here and by no other author read

  • determine which side the user is on
  • identify document type and parties
  • evaluate each material clause from user's perspective
  • assign a risk tier to each material clause
  • generate a risk table
  • list the top three items to negotiate

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 328,083. 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.