Skip to main content Skills Marketplace Descubra e explore skills de IA criadas pela comunidade.
Instalar com Codex ou Claude Copie este prompt, cole no Codex, Claude ou outro assistente e deixe que ele revise a página da skill e instale para você.
Mostrar detalhes do prompt Um comando direto ignora o prompt de revisão. Verifique a origem antes de executá-lo.
npx skills add https://github.com/ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open --skill nda-review-borgheiO comando permanece em uma só linha. Role horizontalmente para revisá-lo antes de copiar.
Prefere uma cópia local? Baixe os arquivos disponíveis atualmente no SkillsMP.
Baixar Zip Baixando... Mais deste repositório fetching-arbitration-rules Use when retrieving arbitration institutional rules (ICC, LCIA, SCC, SIAC, HKIAC, VIAC, МКАС/МАК при ТПП України, UNCITRAL) — fetching current version, verifying redaction applicable to the date of arbitration agreement, constructing URLs for official rule texts
determining-pl-request-regime Use when choosing the Polish legal regime for letters, requests, applications, complaints, petitions, public-information requests, KPA filings, PPSA complaints, RODO access requests, registry extracts, court-file access, tax/ZUS/cudzoziemcy/USC procedures, or professional lawyer letters. Prevents mixing UDIP, KPA, PPSA, RODO, registry, special-procedure, and advocate/radca letter regimes.
applying-new-york-convention Use when preparing applications for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Poland, applications for setting aside arbitral awards under KPC art. 1205–1211, or opposing such applications — mapping Article V of the 1958 New York Convention to art. 1214–1215 of the Polish KPC, identifying grounds for refusal, structuring public policy arguments
Ocupações relacionadas SOC
Baseado na classificação ocupacional SOC
name nda-review-borghei title NDA Review description Deep clause-by-clause NDA review from Recipient or Discloser perspective. Produces issue log with redlines, fallbacks, rationales, owners, deadlines. Use when reviewing NDAs for negotiation or approval. author borghei author_url https://github.com/borghei/Claude-Skills/tree/main/legal/nda-review license MIT version 0.1.0 execution_mode open jurisdiction general practice contracts language en
⚠️ EXPERIMENTAL — This skill is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It does NOT constitute legal advice. All responsibility for usage rests with the user. Consult qualified legal professionals before acting on any output.
NDA Review
Deep clause-by-clause NDA review tool that analyzes agreements from Recipient or Discloser perspective. Produces structured issue logs with preferred redlines, fallback positions, rationale, owners, and deadlines.
Table of Contents
Tools
NDA Clause Reviewer
Performs deep analysis of NDA text, extracting and classifying each clause against best practices. Detects overbroad definitions, missing carveouts, problematic residuals, IP grants, indemnification, and audit rights.
python scripts/nda_clause_reviewer.py nda_draft.txt
python scripts/nda_clause_reviewer.py nda_draft.txt --perspective discloser
python scripts/nda_clause_reviewer.py nda_draft.txt --json
python scripts/nda_clause_reviewer.py nda_draft.txt --output issues.json --json
What it produces:
Clause-by-clause issue log with H/M/L risk ratings
Preferred redline for each issue
Fallback position if preferred is rejected
Rationale for each recommendation
Owner assignment (legal, business, executive)
Deadline category (pre-signing, 30-day, 90-day)
Reference Guides
NDA Clause Reference references/nda_clause_reference.md
Five deep reference modules:
Duration & Scope (term, survival, scope limitations)
Key Clauses (definition, purpose, permitted use, marking)
Party Obligations (standard of care, use restriction, disclosure limits)
Remedies & Liability (injunctive relief, damages, indemnification)
Standard Exceptions (public knowledge, prior possession, independent development, third-party receipt, legal compulsion)
NDA Review Templates references/nda_review_templates.md
Output templates and worked examples:
Executive Summary format
Clause-by-clause Issue Log table format
Ownership and timing defaults by topic category
Worked examples for social media endorsement and group licensing scenarios
Workflows
Full NDA Review
Triage first -- Run nda-triage skill for quick GREEN/YELLOW/RED classificationDeep review -- Run nda_clause_reviewer.py with appropriate --perspectiveReview issue log -- Address HIGH-risk items first, then MEDIUM, then LOWPrepare redlines -- Use preferred positions; prepare fallbacksAssign owners -- Legal owns clause language; business owns commercial termsSet deadlines -- Pre-signing items before next meeting; post-signing items within 30-90 daysNegotiate -- Present redlines; use fallbacks as neededFinal review -- Verify all issues resolved before execution
Perspective-Based Review Perspective Focus Areas Key Concerns Recipient Scope of obligations, carveouts, residuals, return/destruction Protecting freedom to operate; avoiding contamination claims Discloser Definition breadth, remedies, duration, permitted disclosures Maximizing protection; ensuring adequate enforcement
Immediate Red Flags Stop review and escalate if any of these 7 red flags are present.
# Red Flag Why It Matters Escalation 1 Non-compete clause Restricts business operations; requires separate consideration and analysis Senior counsel immediately 2 IP assignment or license grant Transfers rights beyond confidentiality scope Senior counsel immediately 3 Non-solicitation of employees or customers Employment law implications; may be unenforceable Senior counsel within 24 hours 4 Missing 3+ standard carveouts Fundamentally deficient NDA Counsel review before any response 5 Liquidated damages or penalty clause Transforms NDA into penalty contract Senior counsel within 24 hours 6 Perpetual obligations with no termination Indefinite legal burden with no exit Counsel review within 48 hours 7 Exclusivity provision Limits engagement with other parties Business leadership + counsel
Review Checklists
Recipient Checklist (8 Topics) # Topic Key Questions Risk if Missing 1 Definition Scope Is confidential info bounded? Is there a marking requirement? Overbroad definition traps all shared information 2 Standard Carveouts Are all 5 carveouts present and properly drafted? Missing carveouts restrict legitimate business activities 3 Permitted Use Is use restricted to stated purpose? Can we share with advisors? Overly restrictive use limits may impede evaluation 4 Residuals Is there a residuals clause? Is it narrow or broad? Broad residuals clause benefits; narrow or absent protects discloser 5 Return/Destruction Return or destroy option? Retention exception for backups? No retention exception is impractical for electronic data 6 Term & Survival Reasonable term? Reasonable survival period? Termination right? Perpetual obligations are burdensome 7 Remedies Injunctive relief only? Or liquidated damages/indemnification? Excessive remedies shift risk disproportionately 8 Problematic Provisions Non-compete? Non-solicitation? IP assignment? Audit rights? These provisions have no place in a standard NDA
Discloser Checklist (5 Topics) # Topic Key Questions Risk if Missing 1 Definition Breadth Does definition cover all information we will share? All forms? Gaps in definition leave information unprotected 2 Obligation Strength Standard of care adequate? Written agreements from recipients? Weak obligations increase risk of unauthorized disclosure 3 Remedies Injunctive relief available? Is it meaningful in this jurisdiction? Without adequate remedies, NDA is unenforceable in practice 4 Duration Is the term long enough? Does survival cover our exposure window? Short terms may expire before information loses value 5 Recipient Limits Who can receive? Is need-to-know enforced? Downstream binding? Unrestricted sharing exposes information to unauthorized parties
Variation Callouts Different NDA contexts require different review emphasis.
M&A Context Additional Concern Reason Recommended Position Standstill provision Prevents hostile acquisition moves during due diligence Accept if mutual and time-limited (12-18 months) Non-solicitation of employees Standard in M&A NDAs Accept if limited to key employees for 12 months Broader definition M&A requires extensive information sharing Accept broader definition with strong carveouts Longer survival Sensitive strategic information shared 3-5 year survival is appropriate Residuals clause sensitivity Competitive intelligence at stake Resist residuals clause or narrow significantly
Employment Context Additional Concern Reason Recommended Position Invention assignment Employer IP ownership Separate from NDA; use invention assignment agreement Post-employment obligations Obligations after employment ends Limit survival to 2 years; ensure enforceability Scope of work product What the employee creates Define in employment agreement, not NDA Non-compete enforceability Varies by jurisdiction Review local law before including; may be void
VC / Fundraising Context Additional Concern Reason Recommended Position Investor portfolio conflicts VC may have portfolio companies in same space Include portfolio company exclusion or conflict provision Residuals clause VCs see many similar pitches Resist; protect trade secrets and specific data Term limitations VCs want short obligations 2-3 year term acceptable; ensure adequate survival Definition scope Founders want maximum protection Balance with investor need for portfolio flexibility
Risk Rating Guide Rating Criteria Action Timeline HIGH (H) Could result in material legal or financial exposure; deal-breaker potential Must resolve before signing Pre-signing MEDIUM (M) Creates meaningful risk but manageable; strong preference to resolve Should resolve; accept with documented risk if necessary Within 30 days LOW (L) Minor preference; improves agreement but not material Nice to resolve; concede if needed for higher-priority wins Within 90 days
Risk Rating by Issue Type Issue Type Typical Rating Escalation Missing carveout (any) M-H Counsel Overbroad definition M Counsel Non-compete/non-solicitation H Senior counsel IP assignment H Senior counsel Residuals clause (broad) M Counsel Perpetual obligations M-H Counsel No return/destruction M Counsel Liquidated damages H Senior counsel Missing governing law L-M Counsel One-sided obligations M Counsel
Common Pitfalls Pitfall Impact Fix Reviewing without knowing your perspective Recipient and discloser have opposing interests on many clauses Always set --perspective flag; review with clear role in mind Treating the NDA as "just a formality" Missing problematic provisions that create real obligations Run full clause review on every NDA, regardless of perceived importance Negotiating clause-by-clause in document order Wastes time on early low-priority clauses; may not reach critical issues Prioritize by risk rating; address H items first Accepting "standard" NDAs without review Every organization's "standard" is different; one party's standard favors that party No NDA is truly standard; always review Ignoring context (M&A, employment, VC) Standard NDA review misses context-specific risks Use variation callouts for specialized contexts Not preparing fallback positions Stuck when counterparty rejects preferred redline Prepare preferred + fallback for every H and M item Signing before resolving H-rated issues Creates material legal exposure Require all H items resolved or executive sign-off
Troubleshooting Problem Cause Solution All issues rated LOW NDA is genuinely well-drafted, or text extraction lost key sections Manually verify critical sections (definition, carveouts, remedies) are in the input file Perspective flag has no effect Tool adjusts weighting, not detection; same issues found either way Perspective changes risk ratings and recommendations, not issue detection Too many issues generated NDA is non-standard or poorly drafted Focus on H-rated issues first; use the issue log as a negotiation roadmap Script misses embedded provisions Non-compete or IP clause hidden in definitions or general provisions Search full document for "compete", "assign", "license", "solicit" manually Output format does not match template Tool outputs structured data, not final deliverable Use references/nda_review_templates.md to format the output for stakeholders
Success Criteria
Complete clause-by-clause review in under 15 minutes: Automated analysis replaces 1-2 hours of manual review.Zero missed HIGH-risk issues: Every non-compete, IP assignment, and missing carveout is identified.Actionable redlines for every H and M issue: Each issue has preferred position, fallback, and rationale.Clear ownership assignment: Every issue has a designated owner (legal, business, executive).Perspective-appropriate recommendations: Recipient and discloser reviews produce different risk weightings.Context-aware review: M&A, employment, and VC variations are flagged when relevant.
Scope & Limitations
Deep clause-by-clause NDA analysis with pattern matching and risk classification
Perspective-based review (Recipient vs. Discloser)
Issue log generation with redlines, fallbacks, rationale, owners, and deadlines
Detection of 7 immediate red flags for triage
Context variation awareness (M&A, Employment, VC)
Legal advice -- this tool supports review, it does not replace qualified legal counselRapid triage -- use nda-triage for quick GREEN/YELLOW/RED screeningContract types beyond NDAs -- use contract-review for general commercial agreementsJurisdiction-specific enforceability analysis -- requires local counsel assessmentNon-English NDAs -- pattern matching is English-language only
Anti-Patterns Anti-Pattern Why It Fails Better Approach Running deep review without triage first Wastes time on detailed analysis of NDAs that should be rejected outright (RED triage) Always run nda-triage first; only proceed to deep review for YELLOW or GREEN-with-complexity Using Recipient perspective for both sides Recipient perspective minimizes obligations and maximizes carveouts, which is wrong if you are the discloser Always set the correct --perspective flag based on your role Accepting all LOW-rated issues without review Some LOW issues are low-risk individually but create cumulative exposure when combined Review the full issue log for interaction effects; multiple LOW issues in the same area may compound to MEDIUM Skipping the variation callouts for specialized contexts Standard NDA review misses M&A standstill provisions, employment invention assignment, VC portfolio conflicts Check the variation callouts section for your specific deal context
Tool Reference
nda_clause_reviewer.py Purpose: Performs deep clause-by-clause NDA analysis. Detects overbroad definitions, missing carveouts, problematic provisions, and generates an issue log with redlines, fallbacks, rationale, owners, and deadlines.
python scripts/nda_clause_reviewer.py <nda_file> [--perspective PERSPECTIVE] [--json] [--output FILE]
Flag Short Default Description nda_file(positional) Path to NDA text file (.txt or .md) --perspective-precipientReview perspective: recipient or discloser --jsonoff Output in JSON format --output-o(stdout) Write output to file
{
"file" : "vendor_nda.txt" ,
"perspective" : "recipient" ,
"issues" : [
{
"id" : 1 ,
"clause" : "Definition of Confidential Information" ,
"issue" : "Overbroad definition with no marking requirement" ,
"risk" : "H" ,
"preferred_redline" : "Narrow to information marked Confidential or confirmed in writing within 10 days" ,
"fallback" : "Add marking requirement for written; 10-day confirmation for oral" ,
"rationale" : "Overbroad definition traps all shared information as confidential" ,
"owner" : "legal" ,
"deadline" : "pre-signing"
}
] ,
"summary" : {
"total_issues" : 5 ,
"high" : 2 ,
"medium" : 2 ,
"low" : 1
}
}
NDA CLAUSE REVIEW — ISSUE LOG
==============================
File: vendor_nda.txt
Perspective: Recipient
Issues Found: 5 (H:2 M:2 L:1)
# Risk Clause Issue
1 H Definition of Confidential Info Overbroad definition; no marking requirement
Preferred: Narrow to marked information with 10-day oral confirmation
Fallback: Add marking requirement for written; 10-day confirmation for oral
Rationale: Overbroad definition traps all shared information
Owner: legal | Deadline: pre-signing
2 H Standard Carveouts Missing independent development carveout
Preferred: Add standard independent development exception
Fallback: Add with documentary evidence requirement
Rationale: Missing carveout blocks internal R&D
Owner: legal | Deadline: pre-signing
