Reviews Master Services and similar services agreements in two passes: structural completeness, then ten high-leverage clauses with a ranked findings table. Use for high-value vendor, outsourcing, or pre-signing counterparty paper. Not a quick NDA skim (review-nda-quick-check) and not a first-pass risk-flag substitute (review-risk-flagging).
Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.
Quelldateien prüfen
Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Ein direkter Befehl überspringt den Prüf-Prompt. Prüfen Sie die Quelle, bevor Sie ihn ausführen.
Reviews Master Services and similar services agreements in two passes: structural completeness, then ten high-leverage clauses with a ranked findings table. Use for high-value vendor, outsourcing, or pre-signing counterparty paper. Not a quick NDA skim (review-nda-quick-check) and not a first-pass risk-flag substitute (review-risk-flagging).
Use when you need a full commercial review of a Master Services Agreement or substantially similar services framework (Managed Services Agreement, Professional Services Agreement, Enterprise License Agreement with services components, IT Outsourcing Agreement). This is a comprehensive, high-effort review plan for 30–60 minutes of focused work.
Typical triggers:
High-value or strategic vendor engagement (multi-year, AED/USD 500K+)
Enterprise SaaS with significant data processing obligations
Outsourcing arrangement where the provider will have access to Client's systems or data
Acquisition due diligence on a target company's material contracts
Pre-signing review of counterparty's paper
For a quick NDA review, use [[review-nda-quick-check]]. For clause-level risk flagging as a first pass, use [[review-risk-flagging]].
Prerequisites
Required Inputs
Input
Why it matters
Default
MSA draft + all schedules
Full document including SOW template, DPA, SLA, pricing schedule
Required
Party perspective
Client vs Provider framing changes the priority of findings
Ask
Deal context
Contract value, term, data sensitivity, IP at stake
Helpful; infer from document
Jurisdiction
Governs enforceability of caps, non-competes, IP assignment
From governing-law clause
Prior negotiations
Any agreed positions — avoids re-opening closed items
Ask
Reference Loading
Load [[review-missing-clauses]] checklist at the start of Pass 1 to verify structural completeness for the MSA type.
Load [[review-liability-cap-reasonableness]] when Clause 1 (Liability Cap) requires escalation.
Load [[review-indemnification-balance]] when Clause 2 (Indemnification) requires escalation.
Load [[review-ip-ownership-clarity]] when Clause 3 (IP Ownership) requires escalation.
Procedure
Step 1 — Confirm Inputs and Perspective
Confirm you have the full MSA plus all schedules (SOW template, DPA, SLA, pricing schedule). If any schedule is missing, flag it immediately.
Ask the user which party's perspective you are reviewing from (Client or Provider). If not specified, default to Client perspective and note the assumption.
Identify the governing-law clause to determine jurisdictional constraints (see Jurisdictional Notes below).
Ask about any prior negotiated positions so you do not re-open closed items.
Step 2 — Pass 1: Structural Completeness
Load the [[review-missing-clauses]] checklist for the identified MSA type.
Verify all standard MSA components are present:
Parties and effective date
Definitions
Scope of services / SOW mechanics
Fees and payment terms
Term and renewal
Termination rights
Liability cap and exclusions
Indemnification
IP ownership and license-back
Confidentiality
Data processing / DPA
SLA (if services include performance obligations)
Audit rights
Change control
Governing law and dispute resolution
Insurance
Force majeure
Notices
List any missing clauses as structural findings before proceeding to Pass 2.
Step 3 — Pass 2: High-Leverage Clause Analysis
Deep-dive the ten clauses that determine who bears the real risk. For each clause, rate severity and recommend a position. Escalate to the linked sub-skills for full analysis where needed.
Clause 1 — Liability Cap
Key questions:
What is the cap structure? (12-month fees / 24-month / 2× annual / TCV / fixed amount)
Does the cap apply to all damages including IP infringement? (Red flag — IP should be carved out)
Does the cap apply to data breach + regulatory fines? (Red flag — regulatory fines are statutory)
Are carve-outs consistent between this clause and the indemnification section?
Is the cap enforceable in the governing jurisdiction? (Civil-law courts can adjust; UK requires reasonableness test)
Escalate to [[review-liability-cap-reasonableness]] for full analysis.
Common patterns by contract type:
Contract type
Typical Provider cap
Typical Client cap
SaaS (general)
12-month fees
12-month fees
SaaS (high data sensitivity)
12-month fees + data breach uncapped
12-month fees
IT Outsourcing
12–24 months
TCV
Professional Services
12-month fees
Fees paid for relevant services
Construction / FIDIC
Contract Price
Contract Price
Clause 2 — Indemnification
Key questions:
Scope: third-party claims only? Or does it extend to direct losses between the parties?
IP indemnification: does Provider indemnify Client for third-party IP infringement claims arising from use of the Provider's deliverables? (Market standard: yes)
Data breach: who bears indemnification for a breach of the DPA?
Procedure: notice, defense control, settlement consent — all present?
Cap alignment: are IP and data-breach indemnities carved out of the general cap?
Escalate to [[review-indemnification-balance]] for full analysis.
Clause 3 — IP Ownership of Deliverables
Key questions:
Are bespoke deliverables (custom software, reports, content) assigned to Client? Or retained by Provider?
Is the assignment language present-tense ("hereby assigns") or executory ("agrees to assign")?
Are background IP and pre-existing tools carved out?
Is a license-back of background IP granted with an adequate scope and survival period?
Are open-source components disclosed? Any copyleft contamination?
What happens to IP on termination — does Client retain what it has paid for?
Escalate to [[review-ip-ownership-clarity]] for full analysis.
Clause 4 — Termination
Key questions:
Termination for convenience: available to which parties? Notice period? (Market: 30–90 days for either party)
Termination for material breach: is "material breach" defined? Cure period (typically 30 days)? Is right of cure limited to remediable breaches only?
Acceleration of fees: on termination for convenience, does the terminating party owe remaining fees? (Provider-favorable; Client should resist for T4C by Client)
Transition services: is Provider obligated to assist Client in transitioning to a new provider for some period post-termination? (Critical for IT outsourcing and SaaS with Client data)
Data return: on termination, within what timeframe does Provider return or delete Client data?
Red flags:
No termination for convenience — parties locked in until term expires with no exit
Material breach not defined — anything could be "material" or nothing could be
No transition assistance obligation — Client left stranded on exit
Fees continue to accrue during cure period after Client gives notice — double payment trap
Clause 5 — Service Level Agreement (SLA)
Key questions:
Are service levels specified? (Uptime %, response time, resolution time)
How is measurement done? (Provider-reported? Third-party monitoring? Client audit right?)
What are the remedies for SLA failure? (Service credits — rate and cap)
Is the service credit the exclusive remedy for SLA failure? (Common; flag if yes — prevents Client from claiming actual damages for outage)
Are there exclusions from SLA measurement? (Scheduled maintenance, Client-caused failures — should be limited and transparent)
Is there a persistent SLA failure termination right? (e.g., right to terminate if SLA failure exceeds X% in Y months)
Red flags:
No SLAs at all — Provider's obligation is just "reasonable efforts"
Service credits as exclusive remedy with a very low cap (e.g., 10% of monthly fees) — inadequate for high-availability requirements
No persistent-failure termination right
Clause 6 — Data Processing and Privacy
Key questions:
Is a Data Processing Agreement (DPA) attached? (Mandatory where personal data of EU/UK/KSA/UAE residents is processed)
Data residency: where are Client's data stored? Does this comply with applicable cross-border transfer restrictions?
Subprocessors: is there a list of approved subprocessors? Can Provider add subprocessors without Client consent?
Breach notification: within what timeframe must Provider notify Client of a personal data breach? (Must be short enough for Client to meet its own 72-hour regulatory obligation)
Data deletion/return: specific obligation on timing and format of data return or deletion on termination?
Security standards: what technical and organizational security measures does Provider commit to? (ISO 27001, SOC 2, etc.)
Jurisdiction note: if any party or data subject is in KSA, UAE (onshore), DIFC, ADGM, EU, or UK — the DPA is not optional. Its absence is a compliance breach.
Clause 7 — Audit Rights
Key questions:
Does Client have the right to audit Provider's compliance with the agreement? (Financial audit, security audit, data audit)
Frequency: typically once per year with 30 days' notice
Cost: Client usually bears audit cost; Provider bears cost of remediation
Scope: is it limited to the relevant Services / data? (Avoid granting unlimited access to Provider's systems)
Confidentiality of findings: audit results should be treated as confidential
Inspector qualifications: independent third-party auditor (not Client's general staff)
Red flags:
No audit right at all for a data-processing engagement
Audit right is purely a right to "ask questions" with no right to access records
Provider can refuse audit on confidentiality grounds with no arbitral override
Clause 8 — Most-Favored-Customer (MFC)
Key questions:
Does the MFC apply to pricing only? Or to all contractual terms?
If pricing MFC: retroactive (Provider must refund the delta if it gives a better price to anyone)? Or prospective only?
Scope: compared to all customers? Or a defined group (similarly-situated customers, same volume tier)?
Duration: does it survive term expansion or renewal?
MFC is a significant obligation on the Provider — verify that the Client actually needs it given the deal dynamics. If included, mark retroactive MFC as a high-risk item for Provider side.
Clause 9 — Term and Renewal
Key questions:
Initial term and auto-renewal mechanics?
Notice period for non-renewal: if notice for non-renewal must be given 90+ days before auto-renewal, the auto-renewal trap is a material risk (common in SaaS contracts)
Term-end pricing protections: if the contract renews at a higher price without negotiation, Client may be locked into unfavorable pricing
Most favored pricing at renewal: ensure renewal pricing is at least equivalent to current market
Red flags:
Auto-renewal notice window greater than 60 days (creates trap for clients who don't track deadlines)
Renewal at "then-current list prices" — may be materially higher than original pricing
Clause 10 — Change Control
Key questions:
Is there a change control process (Change Order / Statement of Work amendment)?
Who has authority to approve changes?
Does verbal approval bind either party to additional fees?
Is there a mechanism to resolve disputes about whether work falls within existing scope?
Red flags:
No change control process — Provider can claim any additional work was "in scope" or Client can refuse to pay for extra work
Changes bind Client upon written acceptance — but acceptance is defined too broadly (e.g., commencing to use new feature)
Step 4 — Produce Ranked Findings Table
Compile all findings from both passes into a top-10 ranked table. Rank by severity and commercial impact.
Rank
Clause
Issue
Severity
Recommended Position
Fallback
1
Liability Cap
Cap applies to IP indemnity — no carve-out
Critical
IP indemnity uncapped
Separate sublimit at 2× annual fees
2
Data Processing
No DPA attached; GDPR/PDPL compliance gap
Critical
Attach standard DPA with SDAIA clauses
Require DPA execution before go-live
...
...
...
...
...
...
Severity definitions:
Critical = potential regulatory violation or unlimited liability
High = material commercial exposure
Medium = suboptimal but manageable
Low = best-practice gap
Step 5 — Apply Jurisdictional Notes
Review the governing-law clause and apply the relevant jurisdictional constraints below.
DIFC / ADGM: Common-law jurisdiction; English-style drafting conventions apply; DIFC and ADGM both have their own Data Protection Laws that require a DPA where personal data is processed.
KSA: Arbitration clauses must be explicit — specify SCCA/ICC, seat, language, number of arbitrators. IP assignments require specific present-tense language. PDPL DPA requirements apply where Saudi personal data is processed.
UAE (onshore): Federal Data Protection Law (applicable alongside emirate-level rules); penalty clauses are adjustable by courts; IP assignment by future works requires care.
Lebanon: USD denomination for long-term contracts given currency instability; force majeure provisions should address banking and regulatory restrictions.
Pitfalls
Missing schedules: Reviewing only the master agreement without SOW template, DPA, or SLA leads to incomplete findings. Always confirm all schedules are present before starting.
Assuming Client perspective: If the user is reviewing from the Provider side, the priority and severity of findings shifts significantly (e.g., uncapped liability becomes a Critical risk to Provider, not a recommended position).
Re-opening negotiated positions: If prior negotiations settled a clause, flagging it again wastes time and may undermine the user's negotiating position. Always ask about agreed positions first.
Ignoring jurisdictional enforceability: A cap structure that is standard in common-law jurisdictions may be adjusted by civil-law courts. Always check the governing-law clause before recommending positions.
DPA absence as a minor issue: In jurisdictions with mandatory data protection laws (EU, UK, KSA, UAE onshore, DIFC, ADGM), a missing DPA is a Critical compliance breach, not a Medium best-practice gap.
Over-relying on sub-skills: The ten-clause analysis should be completed in this skill. Only escalate to sub-skills (e.g., [[review-liability-cap-reasonableness]]) when a clause requires deeper treatment than the key questions provide.
Vague severity ratings: Always tie severity to a concrete consequence (regulatory fine, unlimited liability, stranded exit, etc.), not a general sense of risk.
Verification
After completing the review, verify your output against this checklist:
Structural completeness: Every standard MSA component from the [[review-missing-clauses]] checklist has been accounted for — either confirmed present or flagged as missing.
All ten high-leverage clauses analyzed: Each clause has been examined with its key questions answered, red flags identified (if any), and severity rated.
Ranked findings table produced: Top-10 findings are ranked by severity with a recommended position and a fallback for each.
Jurisdictional notes applied: The governing-law clause has been identified and the relevant jurisdictional constraints have been incorporated into findings.
Party perspective confirmed: Findings reflect the correct party's perspective (Client or Provider).
No re-opened negotiated positions: Any clauses with prior agreed positions are noted but not flagged as new findings.
DPA presence verified: If personal data of EU/UK/KSA/UAE/DIFC/ADGM residents is processed, DPA presence or absence is explicitly confirmed and severity-rated accordingly.
