contract-review

Analyze commercial agreements against organizational standards with clause-by-clause review and risk flagging

5 stars

Best use case

contract-review is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.

Analyze commercial agreements against organizational standards with clause-by-clause review and risk flagging

Teams using contract-review should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.

When to use this skill

  • You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.

When not to use this skill

  • You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
  • You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.

Installation

Claude Code / Cursor / Codex

$curl -o ~/.claude/skills/contract-review/SKILL.md --create-dirs "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/vamseeachanta/workspace-hub/main/.agents/skills/business/legal/contract-review/SKILL.md"

Manual Installation

  1. Download SKILL.md from GitHub
  2. Place it in .claude/skills/contract-review/SKILL.md inside your project
  3. Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill

How contract-review Compares

Feature / Agentcontract-reviewStandard Approach
Platform SupportNot specifiedLimited / Varies
Context Awareness High Baseline
Installation ComplexityUnknownN/A

Frequently Asked Questions

What does this skill do?

Analyze commercial agreements against organizational standards with clause-by-clause review and risk flagging

Where can I find the source code?

You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.

SKILL.md Source

# Contract Review Skill Documentation

This resource outlines a systematic methodology for analyzing commercial agreements against organizational standards. The framework emphasizes that such reviews support legal workflows but do not constitute legal counsel.

## Core Methodology

The approach involves identifying contract type and party role, then conducting clause-by-clause analysis. Key areas examined include liability caps, indemnification scope, IP ownership, data protection compliance, termination provisions, and dispute resolution mechanisms.

## Severity Classification System

Deviations are categorized as:

- **GREEN (Acceptable)**: Aligns with standard positions; no action needed
- **YELLOW (Negotiate)**: Falls outside preferences but remains negotiable; requires redline suggestions
- **RED (Escalate)**: Poses material risk or triggers escalation criteria; demands senior review

## Redline Best Practices

Effective redlines provide specific language ready for insertion, explain rationales suitable for counterparty sharing, offer fallback positions, and prioritize critical versus aspirational changes. Format includes clause reference, current language, proposed alternatives, rationale, priority level, and backup positions.

## Negotiation Framework

Issues organize into three tiers: Tier 1 (deal-breakers requiring resolution), Tier 2 (strong preferences with negotiation room), and Tier 3 (concession candidates). Strategy involves leading with critical items while trading lower-priority concessions.

The methodology emphasizes balanced, commercially reasonable positions rather than aggressive stances that impede negotiations.

## Lease Reimbursement Evidence Requests

When the user asks whether a tenant/landlord can bill or recover a charge under a lease, treat it as an evidence-extraction task, not just a legal summary:

1. Identify the controlling document, parties, date, property, and exact section number/title.
2. Search for both the charge label and broader legal buckets: `tax`, `assessment`, `charges`, `common area`, `CAM`, `association`, `HOA`, `POA`, `reimburse`, `invoice`, `evidence of payment`, `deadline`, `cap`, `first year`, and `separately assessed`.
3. Quote the operative reimbursement language verbatim, including conditions and deadlines.
4. Separate clearly reimbursable recurring charges from one-time/admin/transfer fees unless the lease language expressly includes them.
5. Return a send-ready counterparty note with document name, section number, quoted text, and payment/invoice evidence to attach.
6. If the source is a PDF and visual proof matters, export only the relevant pages (not the whole document) to images or clipped PDFs so the user can quickly verify the section visually before sending.

See `references/lease-reimbursement-evidence.md` for a compact example pattern from a Family Dollar HOA reimbursement review, including a PDF-page proof workflow.

Related Skills

llm-wiki-page-shape-contract

5
from vamseeachanta/workspace-hub

Enforce the page-shape contract when a repo-side document or analysis output gets converted into an llm-wiki page. Use when (1) running `scripts/knowledge/llm_wiki.py ingest`, (2) writing or rewriting a wiki page from docs/reports/*, docs/handoffs/*, scripts/review/results/*, or calc citation outputs, (3) deciding whether a page should be split into a folder of sub-pages, (4) reviewing wiki PRs for length / diagram / divide-and-conquer compliance. Codifies the Karpathy + Astro-Han + lewislulu page rules applied to workspace-hub's domain-wiki layout under /mnt/local-analysis/llm-wiki/wikis/<domain>/. Sibling to research/llm-wiki (which owns the CLI ops) — this skill is the quality gate every converted page must clear before commit.

plan-review-prompt-refresh-after-plan-edits

5
from vamseeachanta/workspace-hub

Refresh reviewer prompt files from the latest on-disk plan before every adversarial re-review. Prevents Codex/Gemini from critiquing stale plan text after local edits.

workspace-knowledge-doc-contracts

5
from vamseeachanta/workspace-hub

Class-level workspace knowledge, LLM-wiki, repo mission contracts, stale doc references, semantic taxonomy, and knowledge-source reconnaissance.

tdd-verification-and-adversarial-review

5
from vamseeachanta/workspace-hub

Verify pre-written TDD tests pass, conduct adversarial code review on committed diffs, and route findings to existing issues

multi-role-agent-contract-review-pipeline

5
from vamseeachanta/workspace-hub

Execute a 4-role agent team (Planner/Architect/Reviewer/Integrator) pipeline for self-reviewing knowledge artifacts before delivery

gsd-adversarial-review-pattern

5
from vamseeachanta/workspace-hub

Catch hidden test failures by running adversarial review on sparse-data edge cases before final push

adversarial-code-review-tdd

5
from vamseeachanta/workspace-hub

Systematic adversarial review pattern to identify breaking assumptions in already-passing test suites

adversarial-code-review-for-committed-diffs

5
from vamseeachanta/workspace-hub

Systematic process for reviewing already-committed code changes to catch type inconsistencies, edge cases, and docstring gaps

adversarial-code-review-and-fix

5
from vamseeachanta/workspace-hub

Systematic pattern for catching design flaws in already-passing code through adversarial review, then fixing them with TDD confirmation.

learned-git-worktree-hook-path-and-real-hook-shape-review

5
from vamseeachanta/workspace-hub

Catch hook-installation and governance bugs that only appear in linked git worktrees or against the real generated hook shape, not simplified test fixtures.

workspace-hub-mission-contract-first-packet

5
from vamseeachanta/workspace-hub

Plan the first repo-mission canonicalization packet for the workspace ecosystem by reusing the existing control-plane issue, locking Wave-1 scope, and making review criteria deterministic.

ten-agent-pre-plan-review-wave

5
from vamseeachanta/workspace-hub

Launch and verify a 10-agent planning-only wave that moves open GitHub issues into status:plan-review using one isolated worktree per issue, wave-specific continuation cron, and post-run artifact-reconciliation checks.