- name
- codexkit-contract-drafter
- description
- Draft commercial contracts from scratch by contract type — NDAs, service agreements, vendor contracts, employment agreements, and licensing deals. Follow a clause library approach with risk-balanced terms. Use when creating new contracts. Do not replace legal counsel sign-off on finalized agreements. For reviewing existing contracts, use contract-risk-review instead.
- version
- 1.0.0
- category
- scaffolding
# Contract Drafter
## Purpose
Generate well-structured contracts using a clause library approach — producing balanced terms that protect both parties while reflecting business intent.
## When to use
- creating a new NDA, service agreement, or vendor contract from scratch
- drafting a partnership or licensing agreement
- creating an employment contract or consulting agreement
- when no internal template exists for the contract type needed
## When not to use
- reviewing or redlining an existing contract (use contract-risk-review)
- high-value M&A transactions (requires specialized legal counsel)
- jurisdictions with specific regulatory requirements without local counsel input
## Inputs
- contract type (NDA / Service Agreement / Vendor Agreement / Employment / License / Partnership)
- parties involved (names, roles, jurisdictions)
- key commercial terms (scope, duration, pricing, payment terms)
- specific requirements or non-standard terms
- governing law preference
- risk tolerance (conservative / balanced / aggressive)
## Procedure
1. **Select contract template structure** based on type:
- Recitals (background and purpose)
- Definitions section
- Core commercial terms
- Protective clauses
- Standard boilerplate
2. **Draft core clauses** — each with balanced terms:
- Scope of Work / Services: clear deliverables + acceptance criteria
- Payment Terms: milestones, net days, late payment interest
- Term and Renewal: fixed term, auto-renewal notice period
- Termination: for cause + for convenience, notice period, wind-down
3. **Draft protective clauses**:
- IP Ownership: background IP protected, work product assignment
- Confidentiality: duration, permitted disclosures, return of info
- Liability Cap: mutual cap at contract value (or last 12 months fees)
- Indemnification: mutual, limited to direct damages
- Force Majeure: modern clause including pandemic, cyber attack
- Dispute Resolution: escalation path → mediation → arbitration/court
4. **Add boilerplate**:
- Entire Agreement, Severability, Waiver, Assignment, Notices
5. **Risk-calibrate** based on tolerance:
- Conservative: more protections, lower caps, stricter terms
- Balanced: mutual obligations, reasonable caps
- Aggressive: fewer restrictions, higher risk acceptance
6. **Flag missing clauses** that the other party may request.
## Output
- complete contract draft organized by sections
- clause-by-clause commentary explaining purpose and risk level
- missing clauses checklist (what might need adding)
- negotiation guide: which clauses are negotiable vs. firm
- recommended next steps (legal review, counterparty review)
## Definition of done
- contract contains all sections appropriate for its type
- every clause has a risk-level annotation
- IP, liability, and confidentiality clauses are present
- governing law and dispute resolution are specified
## Examples
- "Draft a mutual NDA between our company and a potential partner."
- "Create a service agreement for a 6-month consulting engagement."
- "Write an employment contract for a remote senior developer in Vietnam."
## Quality Criteria
- [ ] All placeholder sections are filled with domain-specific content
- [ ] Structure follows the relevant industry standard or framework
- [ ] Language matches target audience (technical / executive / legal)
- [ ] Output is ready for review — not a rough draft requiring major rework
## Verification (4C)
| Check | Question |
|-------|----------|
| **Correctness** | Does the draft structure follow the stated framework or industry standard? |
| **Completeness** | Are all required sections present with substantive (not placeholder) content? |
| **Context-fit** | Does tone, detail level, and terminology match the intended audience? |
| **Consequence** | If sent to the intended recipient without further editing, what would fail? |
## Edge Cases
- **No existing template for this type** — Use the closest available template and document all customizations made.
- **Stakeholder requirements conflict** — Flag conflicts explicitly in the draft. Do not silently choose one requirement over another.
- **Output required in multiple formats** — Produce the canonical format first, then derive others. Note any formatting limitations.
## Changelog
- v1.0.0 — Initial release
View on GitHub