Rapidly triage an incoming NDA and classify it as GREEN (standard approval), YELLOW (counsel review), or RED (full legal review). Use when a new NDA arrives from sales or business development, when screening for embedded non-solicits, non-competes, or missing carveouts, or when deciding whether an NDA can be signed under standard delegation.
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.
Rapidly triage an incoming NDA and classify it as GREEN (standard approval), YELLOW (counsel review), or RED (full legal review). Use when a new NDA arrives from sales or business development, when screening for embedded non-solicits, non-competes, or missing carveouts, or when deciding whether an NDA can be signed under standard delegation.
If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see CONNECTORS.md.
Triage the NDA: @$1
Rapidly triage incoming NDAs against standard screening criteria. Classify the NDA for routing: standard approval, counsel review, or full legal review.
Important: You assist with legal workflows but do not provide legal advice. All analysis should be reviewed by qualified legal professionals before being relied upon.
Invocation
/triage-nda
Workflow
Step 1: Accept the NDA
Accept the NDA in any format:
File upload: PDF, DOCX, or other document format
URL: Link to the NDA in a document system
Pasted text: NDA text pasted directly
If no NDA is provided, prompt the user to supply one.
Step 2: Load NDA Playbook
Look for NDA screening criteria in local settings (e.g., legal.local.md).
The NDA playbook should define:
Mutual vs. unilateral requirements
Acceptable term lengths
Required carveouts
Prohibited provisions
Organization-specific requirements
If no NDA playbook is configured:
Proceed with reasonable market-standard defaults
Note clearly that defaults are being used
Defaults applied:
Mutual obligations required (unless the organization is only disclosing)
Term: 2-3 years standard, up to 5 years for trade secrets
Standard carveouts required: independently developed, publicly available, rightfully received from third party, required by law
No non-solicitation or non-compete provisions
No residuals clause (or narrowly scoped if present)
Governing law in a reasonable commercial jurisdiction
Step 3: Quick Screen
Evaluate the NDA against each screening criterion systematically.
1. Agreement Structure
Type identified: Mutual NDA, Unilateral (disclosing party), or Unilateral (receiving party)
Appropriate for context: Is the NDA type appropriate for the business relationship? (e.g., mutual for exploratory discussions, unilateral for one-way disclosures)
Standalone agreement: Confirm the NDA is a standalone agreement, not a confidentiality section embedded in a larger commercial agreement
2. Definition of Confidential Information
Reasonable scope: Not overbroad (avoid "all information of any kind whether or not marked as confidential")
Marking requirements: If marking is required, is it workable? (Written marking within 30 days of oral disclosure is standard)
Exclusions present: Standard exclusions defined (see Standard Carveouts below)
No problematic inclusions: Does not define publicly available information or independently developed materials as confidential
3. Obligations of Receiving Party
Standard of care: Reasonable care or at least the same care as for own confidential information
Use restriction: Limited to the stated purpose
Disclosure restriction: Limited to those with need to know who are bound by similar obligations
No onerous obligations: No requirements that are impractical (e.g., encrypting all communications, maintaining physical logs)
4. Standard Carveouts
All of the following carveouts should be present:
Public knowledge: Information that is or becomes publicly available through no fault of the receiving party
Prior possession: Information already known to the receiving party before disclosure
Independent development: Information independently developed without use of or reference to confidential information
Third-party receipt: Information rightfully received from a third party without restriction
Legal compulsion: Right to disclose when required by law, regulation, or legal process (with notice to the disclosing party where legally permitted)
5. Permitted Disclosures
Employees: Can share with employees who need to know
Contractors/advisors: Can share with contractors, advisors, and professional consultants under similar confidentiality obligations
Affiliates: Can share with affiliates (if needed for the business purpose)
Legal/regulatory: Can disclose as required by law or regulation
6. Term and Duration
Agreement term: Reasonable period for the business relationship (1-3 years is standard)
Confidentiality survival: Obligations survive for a reasonable period after termination (2-5 years is standard; trade secrets may be longer)
Not perpetual: Avoid indefinite or perpetual confidentiality obligations (exception: trade secrets, which may warrant longer protection)
7. Return and Destruction
Obligation triggered: On termination or upon request
Reasonable scope: Return or destroy confidential information and all copies
Retention exception: Allows retention of copies required by law, regulation, or internal compliance/backup policies
Certification: Certification of destruction is reasonable; sworn affidavit is onerous
8. Remedies
Injunctive relief: Acknowledgment that breach may cause irreparable harm and equitable relief may be appropriate is standard
No pre-determined damages: Avoid liquidated damages clauses in NDAs
Not one-sided: Remedies provisions apply equally to both parties (in mutual NDAs)
9. Problematic Provisions to Flag
No non-solicitation: NDA should not contain employee non-solicitation provisions
No non-compete: NDA should not contain non-compete provisions
No exclusivity: NDA should not restrict either party from entering similar discussions with others
No standstill: NDA should not contain standstill or similar restrictive provisions (unless M&A context)
No residuals clause (or narrowly scoped): If a residuals clause is present, it should be limited to information retained in unaided memory of individuals and should not apply to trade secrets or patented information
No IP assignment or license: NDA should not grant any intellectual property rights
No audit rights: Unusual in standard NDAs
10. Governing Law and Jurisdiction
Reasonable jurisdiction: A well-established commercial jurisdiction
Consistent: Governing law and jurisdiction should be in the same or related jurisdictions
No mandatory arbitration (in standard NDAs): Litigation is generally preferred for NDA disputes
Step 4: Classify
Based on the screening results, assign a classification:
GREEN -- Standard Approval
All of the following must be true:
NDA is mutual (or unilateral in the appropriate direction)
All standard carveouts are present
Term is within standard range (1-3 years, survival 2-5 years)
No non-solicitation, non-compete, or exclusivity provisions
No residuals clause, or residuals clause is narrowly scoped
Reasonable governing law jurisdiction
Standard remedies (no liquidated damages)
Permitted disclosures include employees, contractors, and advisors
Return/destruction provisions include retention exception for legal/compliance
Definition of confidential information is reasonably scoped
Routing: Approve via standard delegation of authority. No counsel review required.
Action: Proceed to signature with standard delegation of authority
YELLOW -- Counsel Review Needed
One or more of the following are present, but the NDA is not fundamentally problematic:
Definition of confidential information is broader than preferred but not unreasonable
Term is longer than standard but within market range (e.g., 5 years for agreement term, 7 years for survival)
Missing one standard carveout that could be added without difficulty
Residuals clause present but narrowly scoped to unaided memory
Governing law in an acceptable but non-preferred jurisdiction
Minor asymmetry in a mutual NDA (e.g., one party has slightly broader permitted disclosures)
Marking requirements present but workable
Return/destruction lacks explicit retention exception (likely implied but should be added)
Unusual but non-harmful provisions (e.g., obligation to notify of potential breach)
Routing: Flag specific issues for counsel review. Counsel can likely resolve with minor redlines in a single review pass.
Action: Counsel can likely resolve in a single review pass
RED -- Significant Issues
One or more of the following are present:
Unilateral when mutual is required (or wrong direction for the relationship)
Missing critical carveouts (especially independent development or legal compulsion)
Non-solicitation or non-compete provisions embedded in the NDA
Exclusivity or standstill provisions without appropriate business context
Unreasonable term (10+ years, or perpetual without trade secret justification)
Overbroad definition that could capture public information or independently developed materials
Broad residuals clause that effectively creates a license to use confidential information
IP assignment or license grant hidden in the NDA
Liquidated damages or penalty provisions
Audit rights without reasonable scope or notice requirements
Highly unfavorable jurisdiction with mandatory arbitration
The document is not actually an NDA (contains substantive commercial terms, exclusivity, or other obligations beyond confidentiality)
Routing: Full legal review required. Do not sign. Requires negotiation, counterproposal with the organization's standard form NDA, or rejection.
Action: Do not sign; requires negotiation or counterproposal
Step 5: Generate Triage Report
Output a structured report:
## NDA Triage Report
**Classification**: [GREEN / YELLOW / RED]
**Parties**: [party names]
**Type**: [Mutual / Unilateral (disclosing) / Unilateral (receiving)]
**Term**: [duration]
**Governing Law**: [jurisdiction]
**Review Basis**: [Playbook / Default Standards]
## Screening Results
| Criterion | Status | Notes |
|-----------|--------|-------|
| Mutual Obligations | [PASS/FLAG/FAIL] | [details] |
| Definition Scope | [PASS/FLAG/FAIL] | [details] |
| Term | [PASS/FLAG/FAIL] | [details] |
| Standard Carveouts | [PASS/FLAG/FAIL] | [details] |
| [etc.] | | |
## Issues Found
### [Issue 1 -- YELLOW/RED]
**What**: [description]
**Risk**: [what could go wrong]
**Suggested Fix**: [specific language or approach]
[Repeat for each issue]
## Recommendation
[Specific next step: approve, send for review with specific notes, or reject/counter]
## Next Steps
1. [Action item 1]
2. [Action item 2]
Step 6: Routing Suggestion
Based on the classification, recommend the appropriate next step:
Classification
Recommended Action
Typical Timeline
GREEN
Approve and route for signature per delegation of authority
Same day
YELLOW
Send to designated reviewer with specific issues flagged
1-2 business days
RED
Engage counsel for full review; prepare counterproposal or standard form
3-5 business days
For YELLOW and RED classifications:
Identify the specific person or role that should review (if the organization has defined routing rules)
Include a brief summary of issues suitable for the reviewer to quickly understand the key points
If the organization has a standard form NDA, recommend sending it as a counterproposal for RED-classified NDAs
Common NDA Issues and Standard Positions
Issue: Overbroad Definition of Confidential Information
Standard position: Confidential information should be limited to non-public information disclosed in connection with the stated purpose, with clear exclusions.
Redline approach: Narrow the definition to information that is marked or identified as confidential, or that a reasonable person would understand to be confidential given the nature of the information and circumstances of disclosure.
Issue: Missing Independent Development Carveout
Standard position: Must include a carveout for information independently developed without reference to or use of the disclosing party's confidential information.
Risk if missing: Could create claims that internally-developed products or features were derived from the counterparty's confidential information.
Redline approach: Add standard independent development carveout.
Issue: Non-Solicitation of Employees
Standard position: Non-solicitation provisions do not belong in NDAs. They are appropriate in employment agreements, M&A agreements, or specific commercial agreements.
Redline approach: Delete the provision entirely. If the counterparty insists, limit to targeted solicitation (not general recruitment) and set a short term (12 months).
Issue: Broad Residuals Clause
Standard position: Resist residuals clauses. If required, limit to: (a) general ideas, concepts, know-how, or techniques retained in the unaided memory of individuals who had authorized access; (b) explicitly exclude trade secrets and patentable information; (c) does not grant any IP license.
Risk if too broad: Effectively grants a license to use the disclosing party's confidential information for any purpose.
Issue: Perpetual Confidentiality Obligation
Standard position: 2-5 years from disclosure or termination, whichever is later. Trade secrets may warrant protection for as long as they remain trade secrets.
Redline approach: Replace perpetual obligation with a defined term. Offer a trade secret carveout for longer protection of qualifying information.
Notes
If the document is not actually an NDA (e.g., it's labeled as an NDA but contains substantive commercial terms), flag this immediately as a RED and recommend full contract review instead
For NDAs that are part of a larger agreement (e.g., confidentiality section in an MSA), note that the broader agreement context may affect the analysis
Always note that this is a screening tool and counsel should review any items the user is uncertain about
