Marketplace Pricing Download

Legal Workflows

Legal workflows — contract review, compliance checks, NDA triage, risk assessment, legal briefs. Use when reviewing contracts, checking compliance, triaging NDAs, assessing legal risk, or drafting legal documents. Not legal advice — analysis support for qualified professionals.

ID: general.contracts.legal-notque Version: 0.1.0 License: MIT Author: notque Language: en Added: 2026-06-01
⬇ Download

Legal Workflows

Analysis support for in-house legal teams. Contract review, compliance checks, NDA triage, risk assessment, legal writing, and response generation.

Disclaimer: Analysis support, not legal advice. Review by qualified counsel required.


Mode Detection

Classify the request into one mode before proceeding. If the request spans modes, choose the primary and note the secondary.

Mode Signal Phrases Core Output
CONTRACT review contract, clause analysis, redline, playbook, negotiate Clause-by-clause analysis with GREEN/YELLOW/RED flags and redline suggestions
COMPLIANCE compliance check, GDPR, HIPAA, CCPA, SOX, regulation, data protection, DSGVO, GoBD, TDDDG, eIDAS, AI Act, NIS2, KRITIS, Grundschutz, TISAX, DORA Applicable regulations, requirements checklist, risk areas, approvals needed
NDA NDA, triage NDA, non-disclosure, confidentiality agreement GREEN/YELLOW/RED classification with screening checklist
RISK legal risk, risk assessment, exposure, severity, escalation Severity x Likelihood matrix score with escalation path
WRITING legal brief, memo, legal response, draft response, template Structured legal document in appropriate format
VENDOR vendor check, vendor status, agreement status, what's signed Agreement inventory, gap analysis, upcoming deadlines

Reference Loading Table

Load only the references required by the detected mode.

Mode References to Load
CONTRACT references/contract-review.md
COMPLIANCE references/compliance-frameworks.md, references/german-business-compliance.md
NDA references/nda-triage.md
RISK references/risk-assessment.md
WRITING references/legal-writing.md
VENDOR references/contract-review.md (for gap analysis context)

Always load references/llm-legal-failure-modes.md for every mode. LLM failure awareness is non-negotiable in legal work.


Mode: CONTRACT

Framework: INTAKE -> ANALYZE -> FLAG -> REDLINE -> STRATEGIZE

Phase 1: INTAKE -- Accept the contract and gather context.

  • Accept contract as file, pasted text, or URL reference
  • Determine: which side the user is on (vendor/customer/licensor/licensee/partner), deadline, focus areas, deal context (size, strategic importance, existing relationship)
  • If user provides partial context, proceed and note assumptions

Phase 2: ANALYZE -- Clause-by-clause review.

Load references/contract-review.md for the full clause analysis methodology.

  1. Identify contract type (SaaS, services, license, procurement, partnership)
  2. Read entire contract before flagging -- clauses interact (uncapped indemnity may be mitigated by broad LOL)
  3. Analyze each material clause against playbook or market-standard positions
  4. Cover at minimum: LOL, indemnification, IP, data protection, confidentiality, reps/warranties, term/termination, governing law, insurance, assignment, force majeure, payment

Gate: Every material clause analyzed. No clause reviewed in isolation.

Phase 3: FLAG -- Classify deviations.

Flag Meaning Action
GREEN At or better than standard. Minor commercially reasonable variation. Note for awareness. No negotiation.
YELLOW Outside standard but within negotiable range. Common in market. Generate redline + fallback + business impact.
RED Outside acceptable range. Material risk. Escalation trigger. Explain risk. Provide market-standard alternative. Recommend escalation.

Phase 4: REDLINE -- Generate specific alternative language for YELLOW and RED items.

Each redline includes: current language (exact quote), proposed language, rationale (suitable for counterparty), priority (must-have / should-have / nice-to-have), fallback position.

Phase 5: STRATEGIZE -- Negotiation strategy.

  • Tier 1 (deal breakers): uncapped liability, missing DPA for regulated data, IP jeopardizing core assets, regulatory conflicts
  • Tier 2 (strong preferences): LOL adjustments, indemnification scope, termination flexibility, audit rights
  • Tier 3 (concession candidates): preferred governing law, notice periods, minor definitions, insurance certificates

Lead with Tier 1. Trade Tier 3 to secure Tier 2. Escalate before making any Tier 1 concession.

Gate: Top 3 issues identified. Negotiation priority established. Concession candidates named.

Output format:

## Contract Review Summary
**Document**: [name] | **Parties**: [names] | **Side**: [role] | **Basis**: [Playbook/Generic]

## Key Findings
[Top 3-5 issues with severity flags]

## Clause-by-Clause Analysis
### [Clause] -- [GREEN/YELLOW/RED]
**Contract says**: ... | **Standard**: ... | **Deviation**: ... | **Impact**: ... | **Redline**: ...

## Negotiation Strategy
[Priorities, concessions, approach]

Mode: COMPLIANCE

Framework: SCOPE -> MAP -> ASSESS -> RECOMMEND

Phase 1: SCOPE -- Understand the proposed action.

  • What is being done (feature launch, data processing, marketing campaign, new vendor)
  • What data is involved (personal data categories, sensitive data, regulated data)
  • Which geographies (determines applicable regulations)
  • Who is affected (customers, employees, partners, public)

Phase 2: MAP -- Identify applicable regulations.

Load references/compliance-frameworks.md for regulation-specific requirements.

Map all potentially applicable frameworks. Check for overlapping or conflicting requirements across jurisdictions.

Phase 3: ASSESS -- Check each requirement.

Requirement Status Action Needed
[Requirement] Met / Not Met / Unknown [Specific action]

For each risk area, assess severity and mitigation path.

Phase 4: RECOMMEND -- Prioritized action list with approvals needed.

Gate: All applicable regulations identified. Requirements checked. Approvals mapped.

Output: Quick assessment (Proceed / Proceed with conditions / Requires further review), applicable regulations table, requirements checklist, risk areas, recommended actions, approvals needed.


Mode: NDA

Framework: ACCEPT -> SCREEN -> CLASSIFY -> REPORT

Load references/nda-triage.md for the full screening checklist and common deviations catalog.

Phase 1: ACCEPT -- Accept NDA in any format.

Phase 2: SCREEN -- Systematic evaluation against 10 screening criteria.

Agreement structure, definition scope, receiving party obligations, standard carveouts (public knowledge, prior possession, independent development, third-party receipt, legal compulsion), permitted disclosures, term/duration, return/destruction, remedies, problematic provisions (non-solicit, non-compete, exclusivity, standstill, residuals, IP assignment).

Phase 3: CLASSIFY

Classification Criteria Routing
GREEN All criteria pass. Standard mutual, all carveouts, reasonable term, no prohibited provisions. Standard delegation. Same-day approval.
YELLOW Minor deviations: broader definition, longer term, missing one carveout, narrow residuals, non-preferred jurisdiction. Counsel review. 1-2 business days.
RED Wrong type, missing critical carveouts, non-solicit/non-compete, perpetual term, broad residuals, hidden IP assignment, liquidated damages. Full legal review. Do not sign. 3-5 business days.

Phase 4: REPORT -- Structured triage report with specific issues, risks, and suggested fixes.

Gate: Every screening criterion evaluated. Classification justified.


Mode: RISK

Framework: IDENTIFY -> SCORE -> CLASSIFY -> DOCUMENT

Load references/risk-assessment.md for the full severity/likelihood matrix and documentation standards.

Phase 1: IDENTIFY -- Define the risk clearly with background and context.

Phase 2: SCORE -- Apply Severity (1-5) x Likelihood (1-5) matrix.

  • Severity: Negligible (1) through Critical (5), calibrated to financial exposure as % of deal/contract value
  • Likelihood: Remote (1) through Almost Certain (5), calibrated to precedent and triggering events
  • Risk Score = Severity x Likelihood

Phase 3: CLASSIFY

Score Level Color Escalation
1-4 Low GREEN Accept. Monitor quarterly.
5-9 Medium YELLOW Mitigate. Assign owner. Monthly review.
10-15 High ORANGE Senior counsel. Outside counsel if needed. Weekly review.
16-25 Critical RED GC/C-suite/Board. Outside counsel. Litigation hold if applicable. Daily review.

Phase 4: DOCUMENT -- Risk memo with contributing factors, mitigating factors, mitigation options, recommended approach, residual risk, monitoring plan.

Gate: Both severity and likelihood ratings justified with specific rationale. Score calculated. Escalation path defined.


Mode: WRITING

Framework: CLASSIFY -> DRAFT -> REVIEW

Load references/legal-writing.md for format templates and escalation triggers.

Phase 1: CLASSIFY -- Determine document type.

Type Use Case
Legal memo Internal analysis of a legal question
Legal brief Summary of issue, law, and recommendation
Legal response Templated response to common inquiries (DSR, litigation hold, vendor question, NDA request, subpoena)
Meeting brief Pre-meeting context, talking points, action items
Incident brief Rapid brief for developing situations (breach, litigation threat, regulatory inquiry)

Phase 2: DRAFT -- Generate document in the appropriate format.

For legal responses: check escalation triggers before generating. If any trigger fires (regulatory inquiry, potential litigation, criminal exposure, media attention, multiple jurisdictions), stop and recommend escalation instead of a templated response.

Phase 3: REVIEW -- Present draft for user review. Note any assumptions, gaps, or areas needing counsel input.

Gate: Document type correctly identified. Escalation triggers checked. All required elements present.


Mode: VENDOR

Framework: IDENTIFY -> INVENTORY -> GAP ANALYSIS -> REPORT

Phase 1: IDENTIFY -- Accept vendor name. Handle variations (legal name vs. trade name, abbreviations, parent/subsidiary).

Phase 2: INVENTORY -- Search for all agreements with the vendor. For each agreement found, capture: type (NDA/MSA/SOW/DPA/SLA), status (active/expired/in-negotiation), effective date, expiration date, auto-renewal details, key terms.

Phase 3: GAP ANALYSIS -- Identify what exists vs. what should exist.

Required agreements by relationship type:

  • Data processor: NDA + MSA + DPA + SOW minimum
  • SaaS vendor: NDA + MSA/SaaS Agreement + DPA (if personal data) + SLA
  • Professional services: NDA + MSA + SOW(s)
  • Hardware/commodity: NDA + Purchase Agreement

Flag: agreements expired but with surviving obligations, approaching expirations (90-day window), DPA gaps when vendor handles personal data.

Phase 4: REPORT -- Consolidated status report with gap analysis and upcoming actions.

Gate: All available sources checked. Gaps identified. Approaching deadlines flagged.


LLM Failure Mode Awareness

Legal analysis is a high-risk domain for LLM failures. Load references/llm-legal-failure-modes.md and apply these guards on every mode:

Failure Mode Guard
Fabricated case law or citations Verify all citations with user before including. State "verify this citation" when referencing specific law.
Invented regulatory requirements Distinguish between "this regulation requires X" (high confidence, well-known) and "check whether this applies in your jurisdiction" (lower confidence).
Jurisdiction confusion Always ask which jurisdiction applies. Ask which jurisdiction applies. State which jurisdiction the analysis covers.
Overconfident analysis Use calibrated language: "likely," "typically," "in most jurisdictions" rather than absolutes.
Missing clause interactions Read entire contract before analyzing individual clauses. Clauses interact.
Stale legal knowledge Training data has a cutoff. Recommend counsel verify current regulatory state, especially for recently enacted or amended laws.

Error Handling

Error Cause Solution
No contract provided User asks for review without document Prompt for document in any format
Ambiguous jurisdiction Multi-jurisdiction deal Ask user to specify primary jurisdiction. Note differences.
No playbook configured First use, no organizational standards Proceed with market-standard positions. Note clearly.
Contract too long (50+ pages) Large agreement Offer to focus on most material sections first, then complete review
Conflicting regulations Cross-border requirements clash Flag conflicts explicitly. Do not pick a winner. Recommend counsel.
Template needed for unknown type No template for the inquiry type Help user create a template following the creation guide in references

Related Skills

GENERAL · contracts

Business Agreement Generator

Generates customized business agreements for 10 common relationship types with plain English annotations. Use when formalizing a business relationshi…

GENERAL · contracts

AI 智能合同审查系统

Automates contract review by identifying clause risks, comparing against standard contracts, and managing contract lifecycles including expiry remind…

luokai0
GENERAL · contracts

amendment-history

Trace how a contract has changed across its base agreement and all amendments — either a summary of all changes over time, or a provision trace for a…

alexchlou
GENERAL · contracts

amendment-history-anthropics

Trace how a contract has changed across its base agreement and all amendments — either a summary of all changes over time, or a provision trace for a…

anthropics
GENERAL · contracts

Amendment History

Trace how a contract has changed across its base agreement and all amendments — either a summary of all changes over time, or a provision trace for a…

stubbi