Compares each YAML playbook rule to the matching contract provision and emits one ordered finding with found, character-exact excerpt, and status derived from action_* (ok/risk/reject). Apply when an NDA, MSA, DPA, lease, or vendor DD questionnaire must be scored against machine-checkable fields such as max_years or acceptable_jurisdictions. Not a contract-drafting generator and not advice beyond encoded rules; skip reviews that have no playbook.
Compares each YAML playbook rule to the matching contract provision and emits one ordered finding with found, character-exact excerpt, and status derived from action_* (ok/risk/reject). Apply when an NDA, MSA, DPA, lease, or vendor DD questionnaire must be scored against machine-checkable fields such as max_years or acceptable_jurisdictions. Not a contract-drafting generator and not advice beyond encoded rules; skip reviews that have no playbook.
version
1.1.1
risk
safe
source
openrouter-deepsearch
date_added
2026-06-16T00:00:00.000Z
Contract Playbook Review
A contract reviewer applies a structured deviation policy to a contract, clause by clause, and emits a structured review. Each finding is traceable to a machine-checkable rule — never unsupported opinion.
When to Use
Use this skill whenever reviewing any contract — NDA, MSA, vendor DD questionnaire, lease, DPA — against a structured rules-based playbook. The playbook is a list of clause rules. Each rule names a clause, describes the policy in prose, and encodes the policy as machine-checkable fields (e.g. max_years, acceptable_jurisdictions, must_be_present).
Free-form review without a structured playbook. The entire method depends on each finding being traceable to a machine-checkable rule. With no playbook, there is no objective threshold to compare against, so the output degrades into unsupported opinion. If the user wants a general read, tell them so and ask for the playbook.
Drafting contracts from scratch. Review answers "does this provision comply with our policy?"; drafting answers "what should this provision say?" Using a deviation policy as a drafting template produces bland, defensive language that ignores commercial intent.
Legal advice beyond the playbook's encoded rules. The playbook captures a firm's settled positions. Anything outside it (novel risk, jurisdiction-specific enforceability, regulatory interpretation) requires a lawyer's judgement. Flag the gap rather than improvising a rule.
Contracts whose clause types the playbook does not cover. If the playbook has no rule for, say, an arbitration clause, you cannot review that clause — there is no policy to apply. Note the uncovered area so the playbook owner can extend it; do not invent a threshold.
Deprecated rule types or outdated playbook formats. Older shapes like must_be_exactly (replaced by acceptable_set) or YAML 1.1 (which coerces no/off/yes to booleans and mis-parses unquoted thresholds) silently change the meaning of a rule. The danger is not that they fail loudly — it is that they pass while meaning something else. Migrate the playbook before reviewing against it.
Any workflow that treats contract text as low-sensitivity. Contracts routinely contain personal data, pricing, and confidential terms. If a request would route that text through an untrusted channel, log it in the clear, or expose it to parties outside the engagement, stop and confirm the handling first — a leaked draft is far costlier than a delayed review.
A stale playbook. Thresholds anchored to a statute or survey go out of date when the law or market moves. A rule that was correct last year can produce confidently wrong findings today. If you notice a rule's source predates a known change in the relevant law, surface it instead of applying the rule blindly.
Prerequisites
A structured playbook in YAML (or equivalent machine-readable format) containing clause rules with machine-checkable fields.
The contract text in a readable format (plain text, Markdown, or HTML — strip tags before extracting excerpts).
If the playbook uses YAML 1.1, migrate to YAML 1.2 first to avoid silent boolean coercion of no/off/yes.
Confirm the playbook is current: check each rule's source field against known legal or market changes.
Procedure
Step 1: Load and validate the playbook
Parse the playbook file. Confirm it is valid YAML (or the specified format).
Check for deprecated rule types (must_be_exactly → migrate to acceptable_set).
If YAML 1.1 is in use, migrate to YAML 1.2 before proceeding.
Inventory the clause list — you will emit one finding per clause, in the playbook's declared order. No additions, no deletions.
Step 2: Walk the playbook — four-step loop per clause
For each clause rule in the playbook, repeat:
2a. Locate the corresponding provision in the contract
The contract may use different headings. Use three strategies in order:
Heading match — try the playbook's key and label against the contract's section headings (e.g. playbook governing_law → contract heading "Governing Law" or "Choice of Law").
Operative-verb scan — search for verbs/phrases that mark the clause function. ("shall return or destroy" → return/destruction; "irreparable harm" + "injunctive" → equitable relief; "governed by and construed in accordance with" → governing law).
Keyword neighbourhood — for numeric rules, find the unit ("year", "months", "$") and read the surrounding sentence to decide whether it is the term, survival, notice period, or some other duration.
If you searched and the contract really has nothing, set found: false and excerpt: "". Do not manufacture an excerpt. Do not infer one from the playbook prose. A missing clause is a legitimate finding.
2b. Apply the rule
Check the contract's position against the policy fields. Recognise the rule shape:
Rule shape
Field example
"ok" means
Numeric ceiling
max_years: 3, max_months: 24
Contract value ≤ ceiling
Numeric floor
min_years: 1
Contract value ≥ floor
Must be present
must_be_present: true
Provision exists
Must be absent
must_be_absent: true
Provision (or specific phrasing) does NOT exist
Acceptable set
acceptable_jurisdictions: ["England and Wales", "New York", "Delaware"]
Contract value ∈ set
Required feature
must_allow_destruction: true
Provision contains the feature
Conjunction of features
must_require_notice && must_require_cooperation
All features present
Conditional structural
must_be_bilateral_if_present
Provision absent OR present-and-symmetric
A playbook entry may carry a source field naming the published authority the rule is anchored to (a survey, statute, treatise, or firm-published practice guide). When present, treat it as load-bearing — the rule's threshold is not arbitrary; it is the cited source's stated value.
A clause may combine several rule shapes (e.g. "must be present AND have backup carve-out AND allow destruction"). The clause's overall status is ok only if every sub-rule passes.
2c. Classify the outcome
Status is derived from the playbook's action_* field, not from the rule shape. This is the most common place an agent goes wrong: it sees must_be_absent and reaches for reject by reflex. Don't. Use the prescribed action to decide status:
action_if_ok ("accept", "no_change") → status ok
Any action that begins with request_ (request_reduction / request_addition / request_revision / request_change / request_amendment) → status risk. The "request_" prefix is the signal: we still want the contract; we're going to negotiate. Even a must_be_absent clause whose action_if_present is request_revision is still risk, not reject.
action_if_present (or action_if_violated) of reject_and_remove / reject / walk_away → status reject. The rule's prescribed response is to refuse, not to negotiate.
When the playbook is silent on a particular outcome, fall back to: action prefix request_ → risk; explicit reject/walk-away → reject.
2d. Record the finding
Emit a structured finding with these non-optional fields:
clause — the playbook clause key
found — boolean; true if the provision was located in the contract
excerpt — verbatim substring of the contract source (see rules below); "" when found: false
status — ok, risk, or reject (derived from action, not rule shape)
action — the playbook's prescribed action for this outcome
rationale — one sentence stating the operative facts and the rule applied
Step 3: Extract the verbatim excerpt
The excerpt is what proves your finding. Three hard rules:
It must be a substring of the contract source — character-for-character, including punctuation and capitalisation. Do not paraphrase. Do not stitch together text from different paragraphs.
Keep it short and targeted — the smallest excerpt that contains the operative language. Most playbooks bound this (e.g. ≤ 400 characters). If the operative language spans more than that, choose the most diagnostic phrase.
For a found: false finding, the excerpt is "".
When extracting from Markdown or plain text, copy the exact run including any quotation marks, parentheses, or numerical values. When extracting from HTML, strip tags first; do not include rendered artifacts.
Step 4: Write the rationale
One sentence. State the operative facts and the rule applied. Examples:
ok: "Term is one year, within the 3-year maximum."
risk (numeric ceiling): "Survival is ten years, exceeding the 7-year cap."
risk (missing feature): "Definition exclusions cover the four standard exceptions but omit a residuals carve-out."
reject: "A non-compete covenant is present; the playbook's prescribed action for this clause is reject_and_remove."
Avoid: hedging ("appears to", "may be"), restating the playbook in full, repeating the rationale across clauses.
Step 5: Emit output
Emit one entry per playbook clause, in the playbook's declared order. No additions, no deletions.
Schema fields are non-optional: clause, found, excerpt, status, action, rationale. Use empty string (not null, not missing) when the value is empty.
The output format is whatever the instruction specifies (usually JSON). Validate the file is parseable before declaring done.
"This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and continue for a period of five (5) years unless earlier terminated in accordance with Section 9 (Termination). Upon expiry of the initial term, this Agreement shall automatically renew for successive one (1) year periods unless either party gives ninety (90) days' written notice of non-renewal."
Finding:
{"clause":"term","found":true,"excerpt":"continue for a period of five (5) years","status":"risk","action":"request_reduction","rationale":"Term is five years, exceeding the 3-year maximum."}
"During the Term and for twelve (12) months thereafter, Employee shall not, directly or indirectly, engage in any business competitive with the Company within the United States, nor solicit any customer or employee of the Company, without the Company's prior written consent."
Finding:
{"clause":"non_compete","found":true,"excerpt":"Employee shall not engage in any business competitive with the Company","status":"reject","action":"reject_and_remove","rationale":"A non-compete covenant is present; the playbook's prescribed action for this clause is reject_and_remove."}
Example 3: Missing clause (must-be-present)
Playbook entry:
clause:data_destructionlabel:"Return or Destruction of Data"must_be_present:truemust_allow_destruction:trueaction_if_missing:"request_addition"action_if_violated:"request_revision"
Contract: No matching provision found.
Finding:
{"clause":"data_destruction","found":false,"excerpt":"","status":"risk","action":"request_addition","rationale":"No return/destruction clause found; playbook requires one with destruction right."}
Pitfalls
Confusing term and survival. Two different durations. The contract's "Term" section is the active period; survival is buried at the end of that section as "the provisions of Sections X, Y, Z shall survive...". Read the whole Term section before classifying either.
Treating a must_be_absent rule as a numeric ceiling. If the playbook says must_be_absent: true, a 1-year non-compete still violates the rule even though "1 year" sounds reasonable — the presence matters, not the value. The violation's status then comes from the prescribed action as always: request_* → risk; only an explicit reject / walk-away action makes it reject.
Granting credit for a partial feature. "Must allow destruction AND have backup carve-out" requires both. Don't mark ok for a return/destruction clause that allows destruction but lacks the backup carve-out.
Reading the recital as the clause. The preamble often paraphrases obligations ("the parties wish to protect..."); the operative clause is later. Find the operative clause.
Inferring presence from a cross-reference. If Section 9 says "Sections 3, 4, 5 ... shall survive", Sections 3, 4, and 5 themselves are not the survival clause — they're whatever they were. The survival clause is the cross-reference itself.
Going directly from rule shape to status. A must_be_absent rule with action_if_present: "request_revision" is risk, not reject. Always derive status from the action_* field.
Paraphrasing the excerpt. The excerpt must be a character-for-character substring. Any paraphrasing — even minor word swaps — invalidates the finding's grounding.
Skipping silent clauses. Don't skip clauses just because the contract is silent on them — silence is itself a finding (found = false) and may trigger an action (e.g. "request_addition").
Using null instead of empty string. Schema fields are non-optional. Use "" (empty string), not null or missing keys.
Verification
Run the test suite against sample contracts with known playbook outcomes.
Verify all rule types (numeric ceiling, floor, must-be-present, must-be-absent, acceptable set, required feature, conjunction, conditional structural) produce correct status mappings.
Confirm verbatim excerpts are exact substrings of source contracts — character-for-character, including punctuation and capitalisation.
Validate JSON output schema compliance: all required fields present (clause, found, excerpt, status, action, rationale), empty strings not null.
Check that missing clauses correctly return found: false with empty excerpt and appropriate action-derived status.
Confirm one finding per playbook clause, in declared order — no additions, no deletions.
Confirm status is derived from action_* fields, not from rule shape (e.g. must_be_absent with request_* action → risk, not reject).
Test for security vulnerabilities, such as unauthorized access to contract data or potential data breaches.
Validate playbook updates to ensure they reflect changes in laws, regulations, or industry standards.
Related Skills
contract-extraction — for pulling structured data from contracts before playbook review.
clause-classification — for identifying clause types when playbook keys don't match headings.
redline-generation — for producing negotiated markup after playbook review findings.
