contract-review
À propos
Cette compétence analyse systématiquement les contrats pour identifier les risques, les clauses défavorables et les opportunités de négociation. Elle est conçue pour examiner les accords avec les fournisseurs, les partenariats, les contrats de travail et les documents de due diligence. L'outil signale les clauses problématiques en se basant sur des cadres juridiques et des matrices de risques, aidant ainsi les développeurs à évaluer les contrats avant signature.
Installation rapide
Claude Code
Recommandénpx skills add guia-matthieu/clawfu-skills -a claude-code/plugin add https://github.com/guia-matthieu/clawfu-skillsgit clone https://github.com/guia-matthieu/clawfu-skills.git ~/.claude/skills/contract-reviewCopiez et collez cette commande dans Claude Code pour installer cette compétence
Documentation
Contract Review
Systematically analyze contracts to identify risks, unfavorable clauses, and negotiation opportunities before signing.
When to Use This Skill
- Reviewing vendor/SaaS contracts
- Analyzing partnership agreements
- Evaluating client service agreements
- Reviewing employment contracts
- Due diligence on M&A documents
Methodology Foundation
Based on legal contract analysis frameworks combined with:
- Risk assessment matrices
- Common clause libraries
- Industry-standard benchmarks
- Negotiation leverage analysis
What Claude Does vs What You Decide
| Claude Does | You Decide |
|---|---|
| Identifies risky clauses | Risk tolerance level |
| Flags unusual terms | What to negotiate |
| Compares to standards | Final accept/reject |
| Suggests alternatives | Business trade-offs |
| Summarizes obligations | Legal counsel needs |
Instructions
Step 1: Contract Overview
Initial Assessment:
| Element | What to Capture |
|---|---|
| Parties | Who's bound |
| Type | Service, license, partnership |
| Term | Duration, renewal |
| Value | Total commitment |
| Jurisdiction | Governing law |
Step 2: Risk Categories
Clause Risk Matrix:
| Category | Low Risk | Medium Risk | High Risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability | Mutual caps | Uncapped | Unlimited indemnity |
| Term | Monthly | Annual | Multi-year auto-renew |
| Data | Standard DPA | Custom terms | Broad usage rights |
| IP | License only | Work for hire | Assignment |
| Termination | 30-day notice | For cause only | Penalties |
Step 3: Clause-by-Clause Analysis
Key Clauses to Review:
Payment Terms:
- Net terms (30/60/90)
- Late payment penalties
- Price escalation clauses
- Audit rights
Liability & Indemnification:
- Cap on liability (multiple of fees)
- Carve-outs (willful misconduct, IP)
- Indemnification scope
- Insurance requirements
Termination:
- For convenience vs. for cause
- Notice periods
- Transition assistance
- Data return/destruction
IP & Data:
- Ownership of deliverables
- License scope
- Data usage rights
- Confidentiality obligations
Step 4: Benchmarking
Industry Standards:
| Clause | Typical | Favorable | Unfavorable |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability cap | 12 mo fees | 24 mo fees | Uncapped |
| Payment | Net 30 | Net 45 | Net 15 |
| Termination | 30 days | 60 days | 90+ days |
| Auto-renewal | 30-day opt-out | 60-day opt-out | 90-day opt-out |
Step 5: Generate Recommendations
Output Structure:
- Executive summary (2-3 sentences)
- Risk rating (Low/Medium/High/Critical)
- Red flags (must address)
- Yellow flags (should negotiate)
- Green flags (acceptable)
- Recommended redlines
- Questions for counsel
Examples
Example 1: SaaS Vendor Contract Review
Input:
Review this SaaS contract summary:
- 3-year term with 90-day auto-renewal notice
- Unlimited liability for data breaches
- Vendor can change pricing with 30-day notice
- Data can be used for "service improvement"
- Termination only for material breach
Output:
## Contract Review: SaaS Vendor Agreement
### Risk Rating: HIGH
---
### Executive Summary
This contract heavily favors the vendor with limited termination rights, uncapped liability exposure for you, and one-sided price increase provisions. Recommend significant negotiation before signing.
---
### Red Flags (Must Address)
| Clause | Issue | Risk | Recommendation |
|--------|-------|------|----------------|
| **Auto-Renewal** | 90-day notice for 3-year contract | Lock-in risk | Reduce to 30-60 days |
| **Pricing** | Vendor can change with 30-day notice | Budget risk | Cap increases at 5%/year or CPI |
| **Termination** | Material breach only | Lock-in risk | Add termination for convenience with notice |
| **Liability** | Unlimited for data breaches | Financial risk | Cap at 24 months of fees |
---
### Yellow Flags (Should Negotiate)
| Clause | Issue | Recommendation |
|--------|-------|----------------|
| **Data Usage** | "Service improvement" is vague | Define scope, exclude training AI |
| **Term Length** | 3 years is long | Request 1-year with renewal option |
| **SLA** | None mentioned | Require 99.9% uptime with credits |
---
### Green Flags (Acceptable)
- Standard confidentiality provisions
- Reasonable IP license terms
- Clear support response times
---
### Recommended Redlines
**Priority 1 (Deal Breakers):**
Section 8.2: Change "90 days" to "30 days" Section 12.1: Add "and termination for convenience with 60 days written notice" Section 14.3: Add "not to exceed 24 months of fees paid under this Agreement"
**Priority 2 (Strongly Preferred):**
Section 5.1: Add "Price increases shall not exceed 5% annually" Section 9.4: Change "service improvement" to "providing and improving the Service for Customer"
---
### Questions for Legal Counsel
1. Is unlimited data breach liability acceptable given our cyber insurance coverage?
2. What's our exposure if we need to exit before term completion?
3. Are there regulatory implications for the data usage clause?
---
### Negotiation Leverage
**Your Position:** First-year customer, significant deal size
**Their Likely Flex:**
- Auto-renewal notice period
- Liability caps
- Pricing caps
**Their Likely Firm:**
- Base term length
- Core data usage rights
Example 2: Quick Risk Assessment
Input:
Quick review - key concerns only:
- Unlimited indemnification for IP claims
- 2x annual fees liability cap
- Net 45 payment terms
- 60-day termination notice
- Standard DPA included
Output:
## Quick Risk Assessment
### Overall: MEDIUM RISK
| Clause | Rating | Note |
|--------|--------|------|
| Indemnification | HIGH | Unlimited IP indemnity is risky |
| Liability Cap | GREEN | 2x is standard |
| Payment | GREEN | Net 45 is favorable |
| Termination | GREEN | 60 days is reasonable |
| Data Protection | GREEN | Standard DPA |
### Priority Action
**Address Indemnification:**
- Request mutual cap on IP indemnity
- Propose "lesser of [amount] or 12 months fees"
- Alternative: carve out for willful infringement only
**Everything Else:** Acceptable, proceed if IP indemnity resolved.
Skill Boundaries
What This Skill Does Well
- Identifying common risk patterns
- Comparing to industry benchmarks
- Structuring negotiation priorities
- Flagging unusual clauses
What This Skill Cannot Do
- Provide legal advice
- Know jurisdiction-specific requirements
- Assess strategic business importance
- Replace qualified legal counsel
When to Escalate to Human
- Contracts over $100K annual value
- Non-standard or heavily negotiated terms
- Any regulated industry requirements
- Indemnification or liability questions
Iteration Guide
Follow-up Prompts:
- "What's the worst-case scenario for the liability clause?"
- "Draft redline language for [specific clause]"
- "How does this compare to [competitor] contracts?"
- "What should we ask for in return if we accept [term]?"
References
- ACC (Association of Corporate Counsel) Contract Guidelines
- IACCM Contract Terms Benchmarking
- Tech Contract Negotiation Best Practices
- Standard SaaS Agreement Templates
Related Skills
rfp-response- Creating proposalsnda-generator- Confidentiality agreementsterms-analyzer- Terms of service review
Skill Metadata
- Domain: Legal
- Complexity: Intermediate
- Mode: centaur
- Time to Value: 30-60 min per contract
- Prerequisites: Contract access, business context
Dépôt GitHub
Compétences associées
llamaguard
AutreLlamaGuard est le modèle de Meta, doté de 7 à 8 milliards de paramètres, conçu pour modérer les entrées et sorties des LLM selon six catégories de sécurité comme la violence et les discours haineux. Il offre une précision de 94 à 95 % et peut être déployé avec vLLM, Hugging Face ou Amazon SageMaker. Utilisez cette compétence pour intégrer facilement le filtrage de contenu et des garde-fous de sécurité dans vos applications d'IA.
cost-optimization
AutreCette compétence de Claude aide les développeurs à optimiser les coûts du cloud grâce au redimensionnement des ressources, aux stratégies d'étiquetage et à l'analyse des dépenses. Elle fournit un cadre pour réduire les dépenses cloud et mettre en œuvre une gouvernance des coûts sur AWS, Azure et GCP. Utilisez-la lorsque vous devez analyser les coûts d'infrastructure, redimensionner les ressources ou respecter des contraintes budgétaires.
quantizing-models-bitsandbytes
AutreCette compétence quantifie les LLMs en précision 8 bits ou 4 bits à l'aide de bitsandbytes, permettant une réduction de 50 à 75 % de la mémoire utilisée avec une perte de précision minime. Elle est idéale pour exécuter des modèles plus volumineux sur une mémoire GPU limitée ou pour accélérer l'inférence, prenant en charge des formats comme INT8, NF4 et FP4. La compétence s'intègre à HuggingFace Transformers et permet l'entraînement QLoRA ainsi que l'utilisation d'optimiseurs en 8 bits.
dispatching-parallel-agents
AutreCette compétence Claude déploie plusieurs agents pour enquêter et résoudre simultanément 3 problèmes indépendants ou plus. Elle est conçue pour des scénarios impliquant des défaillances non liées qui peuvent être résolues sans état partagé ni dépendances. La capacité fondamentale est la résolution de problèmes en parallèle, en assignant un agent par domaine problématique indépendant afin de maximiser l'efficacité.
