review-a-contract

Read a contract someone sent you and tell you what's in it. Pick how deep: a quick verdict on whether it's safe to sign, a fast NDA check, or a clause-by-clause map without a verdict. Every clause that needs attention gets a clear note and, when needed, suggested wording to push back with.

Ir a la instalación

Repositorio: ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open
Última actividad en el origen: 1 de junio de 2026 a las 17:27
Idioma detectado de SKILL.md: inglés
Estrellas: 40
Forks: 4

Opciones de instalación

De forma predeterminada está seleccionado el prompt que primero revisa el origen. Puedes cambiar a un comando directo o descargar una copia local.

Revisa los archivos de origen

Lee SKILL.md y los archivos complementarios que muestra SkillsMP antes de decidir si quieres instalarlo.

Volver a la búsqueda Volver a la instalación

name	review-a-contract
title	Review a Contract
description	Read a contract someone sent you and tell you what's in it. Pick how deep: a quick verdict on whether it's safe to sign, a fast NDA check, or a clause-by-clause map without a verdict. Every clause that needs attention gets a clear note and, when needed, suggested wording to push back with.
author	gethouston
author_url	https://github.com/gethouston/houston/tree/main/store/agents/legal/.agents/skills/review-a-contract
license	MIT
version	0.1.0
execution_mode	open
jurisdiction	general
practice	contracts
language	en

Review a Contract

One skill for first-read of counterparty contract. mode pick depth. Structured clause extraction + "never invent clause-standard can't cite" discipline shared.

Parameter: `mode`

full - full MSA / DPA / order-form review: clause map + Green (accept) / Yellow (pushback OK) / Red (redline required) verdict per clause + plain-English summary + accept / redline / walk rec. Writes to contract-reviews/{counterparty}-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md.
nda-traffic-light - fast 6-dimension rubric for inbound NDAs (term, mutuality, confidential-info definition, carve-outs, jurisdiction, non-solicit smuggling, return/destruction). Writes to ndas/{counterparty-slug}-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md with specific redlines on every Red item.
clauses-only - structured extraction, no verdict. Reads supplied contract (file / URL / paste), extracts clauses that matter (term, termination, renewal, liability cap, indemnity, IP, governing law, DPA, AI training, data residency, exit rights), writes human-readable map to clause-extracts/{counterparty}-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md, updates counterparty-tracker.json with key fields.

User name mode in plain English ("traffic-light this", "just extract the clauses", "full review with a verdict") → infer. Ambiguous → ask ONE question naming 3 options.

When to use

Explicit: "review this contract", "traffic-light this NDA", "is this signable?", "what's in this agreement", "extract clauses".
Plain-English asks map to a mode: "fully review this customer contract / MSA" / "is this MSA safe to sign" → full; "quick check on this NDA" / "is this NDA OK to sign" → nda-traffic-light; "just lay out the clauses" / "pull out the clauses, no verdict" / "review the IP clause" (run full and lead with the IP section) → clauses-only or full with IP focus.
Implicit: called by sort-my-legal-inbox when detects MSA / NDA / DPA and routes to review. Chained into plan-contract-pushback when output has any Red items.

Ledger fields I read

Reads config/context-ledger.json first.

universal.legalContext + context/legal-context.md - required. Provides entity (governing-law compat check), standing agreements (template-vs-market compare), open risks, founder risk posture. If context/legal-context.md missing, run skill first (or ask ONE targeted question to skip ahead).

set-up-my-legal-info

Read ledger + legal context. Gather missing required fields per above. Write atomically.
Acquire contract. Priority: connected document-storage (Google Drive) > URL + Firecrawl scrape > file drop > paste. Only PDF supplied + no text-extraction tool connected → say so, ask for text-extractable version.
Discover tools via Composio. Run composio search document-storage / composio search web-scrape as needed. No connection + contract is URL → ask user to paste text.
Branch on mode.
- full: extract clause map (see clauses-only below), grade each clause vs market standard for solo-founder stage company:
  - Green - accept as-written.
  - Yellow - pushback OK but not required.
  - Red - redline required before signing. Produce: executive summary (2-3 sentences), clause-by-clause table (Clause | Counterparty text | Verdict | Why | Suggested redline if Red), overall rec (Accept / Redline / Walk). Any clause outside confident range (unusual IP carve-out, complex indemnity stack, non-standard data-protection addendum) → flag attorneyReviewRequired: true and rec chaining to draft-a-legal-document type=escalation-brief.
- nda-traffic-light: run 7-dimension rubric:
  1. Term (indefinite = Red, > 5 years = Yellow).
  2. Mutuality (one-way from bigger party = Yellow, one-way from us = Green if we discloser, Red if not).
  3. Confidential information definition (too broad = Red, exclusion of publicly known info missing = Red).
  4. Carve-outs (residual-knowledge clause = Red, standard legal-process + independent-development = Green).
  5. Jurisdiction (counterparty's non-US state = Yellow, non-US country = Red, Delaware / California / NY = Green).
  6. Non-solicit smuggling (employee non-solicit hidden in NDA = Red; call out explicitly).
  7. Return/destruction (missing = Yellow, 30-day certification requirement = Yellow, 5-day = Red). Write specific redline for every Red item (not generic "we'll send you our form"). Produce one-paragraph summary + verdict + redlines.
- clauses-only: no verdict. Extract clause-by-clause:
  - Parties, effective date, term, auto-renewal, notice period.
  - Payment terms, fee schedule, tax handling.
  - Termination (for convenience, for cause, notice period).
  - Liability cap (per-claim / annual / unlimited / supercap).
  - Indemnity (mutual / one-way, carve-outs, process).
  - IP (work product, assignment, background IP, feedback).
  - DPA / data handling (transfer mechanism, subprocessors, SCCs).
  - AI training / data use (explicit opt-out, training rights).
  - Data residency, governing law, dispute forum, arbitration.
  - Exit rights (data return / destruction, transition window).
  - Assignment, change-of-control, flow-downs. Each clause: counterparty-text (quoted) + plain-English paraphrase + "what to watch" one-liner (no verdict).
Update counterparty-tracker.json (every mode) - read-merge-write atomically. Append or update row for counterparty with extracted structural fields (type, term, auto-renewal, notice period, governing law, renewal date if computable).
Write artifact atomically (*.tmp → rename):
- full → contract-reviews/{counterparty-slug}-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md.
- nda-traffic-light → ndas/{counterparty-slug}-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md.
- clauses-only → clause-extracts/{counterparty-slug}-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md.
Append to outputs.json - read-merge-write atomically: { id (uuid v4), type: "contract-review" | "nda-review" | "clause-extract", title, summary, path, status: "ready", domain: "contracts", createdAt, updatedAt, attorneyReviewRequired? }.
Summarize to user. One short paragraph in plain language: the overall verdict (or "no verdict" if extraction-only) and what jumps out. If anything's a deal-breaker, offer the next step plainly: "Want me to plan the pushback?" Never name files, paths, or internal procedures.