Contract Review Skill
This skill produces a structured contract review identifying key terms, unusual or high-risk clauses, and a plain English summary. Always include the disclaimer that this is not legal advice.
Required Inputs
- Contract text or description (paste or describe)
- Reviewer role (e.g. the party signing, their legal team, a business owner)
- Contract type (e.g. SaaS agreement, employment contract, NDA, supplier contract)
- Key concerns (optional — e.g. "focus on IP ownership and termination clauses")
Output Structure
1. Contract Overview
- Type: [Contract type]
- Parties: [Party A and Party B]
- Effective date / duration: [If stated]
- Governing law: [Jurisdiction]
- Overall risk rating: Green Low / Amber Medium / Red High
2. Key Terms Summary
| Term | Detail |
|---|---|
| Payment / fees | |
| Term and renewal | |
| Termination rights | |
| Liability cap | |
| IP ownership | |
| Confidentiality | |
| Dispute resolution |
3. Flagged Clauses
For each flagged clause:
[Risk level] — [Clause name]
- What it says: [Plain English summary]
- Why it matters: [Risk or implication]
- Suggested action: [Negotiate / Accept / Seek legal advice / Query]
4. Missing Clauses
List any standard clauses absent but normally expected for this contract type.
5. Plain English Summary
3-5 sentences. What does this contract mean for the party signing it?
6. Recommended Next Steps
- [Action 1]
- [Action 2]
WARNING: This review is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult a qualified solicitor or lawyer before signing any legally binding agreement.
Quality Checks
- Overall risk rating is justified (not just "Medium" without reasons)
- All flagged clauses have a specific recommended action (not just "read this")
- Missing clauses section is completed for this contract type
- Plain English summary can be understood by a non-lawyer
- Disclaimer is included
Anti-Patterns
- Do not provide legal advice or suggest the review substitutes for qualified legal counsel
- Do not skip flagging unusual or one-sided clauses because they appear standard
- Do not omit a plain-English summary — legal jargon alone is not useful output
- Do not rate risk without explaining what specifically drives that rating
- Do not ignore missing clauses — absence of key protections is itself a risk
Example Trigger Phrases
- "Review this contract: [paste]"
- "Flag the key risks in this agreement"
- "Summarise this SaaS contract in plain English"
- "What should I watch out for in this supplier agreement?"