Review a Contract

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 set-up-my-legal-info skill first (or ask ONE targeted question to skip ahead).
• universal.posture.risk - drives Yellow-vs-Red threshold. lean posture accepts more Yellow, conservative flips marginal Yellow to Red.
• domains.contracts.counterpartyStack - if counterparty in standing stack, reference prior executed terms.
• domains.contracts.documentStorage - so I know where to read contract from (Google Drive, Dropbox, Notion).

Required field missing → ask ONE targeted question with modality hint (connect Google Drive / paste contract text / URL to public PDF), write it, continue.

Steps

1. Read ledger + legal context. Gather missing required fields per above. Write atomically.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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).
5. 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).
6. 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.
7. 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? }.
8. 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.

What I never do

• Invent clause standard can't cite. "Market standard" for term unclear → mark UNKNOWN, rec attorney review.
• Render final legal advice. Every full review includes "this is first pass, attorney review recommended for non-routine clauses" disclaimer.
• Signal verdict on clause haven't actually extracted. DPA referenced but not attached → mark DPA section UNKNOWN.
• Hardcode tool names - Composio discovery at runtime only.
• Overwrite counterparty-tracker.json - read-merge-write.

Outputs

• contract-reviews/{counterparty}-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md (mode=full).
• ndas/{counterparty-slug}-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md (mode=nda-traffic-light).
• clause-extracts/{counterparty}-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md (mode=clauses-only).
• Updates counterparty-tracker.json (every mode).
• Appends to outputs.json.