什么是 合同审查？

contract-review 技能是为 Openclaw Skills 设计的专业工具，利用 CUAD 数据集和 LegalBench 对法律文件进行深度分析。它支持多种协议，包括 NDA、SaaS MSA、并购文件和雇佣合同。通过分析 41 个不同的风险类别，它为开发人员和法律专业人士提供了一种评估文件安全性和合规性的标准方法。

该技能不仅限于简单的文本提取，还能解读合同中的权力博弈。它会根据用户的具体角色（如供应商与客户、买方与卖方）评估风险，确保反馈在 Openclaw Skills 框架内与用户的战略目标保持一致。

下载入口:https://github.com/openclaw/skills/tree/main/skills/lmanchu/contract-review

安装与下载

1. ClawHub CLI

从源直接安装技能的最快方式。

2. 手动安装

将技能文件夹复制到以下位置之一

优先级：工作区 > 本地 > 内置

3. 提示词安装

将此提示词复制到 OpenClaw 即可自动安装。

合同审查 应用场景

• 审查 SaaS 订阅协议中不利的责任上限或不对称的终止权。
• 从保密协议中提取关键里程碑和续约日期。
• 将并购价格机制和托管扣留款项与行业规范进行对标。
• 识别服务合同中缺失的基本条款，如数据导出权或 SLA 赔偿。
• 审计大型文件集，检查内部一致性及缺失的引用附件。

1. 技能在检测到“分析协议”等关键词或向智能体上传法律文件时触发。
2. 执行初步的文件完整性检查，以识别空白字段、缺失签名或未提供的引用附件。
3. 智能体提示用户确认其在合同中的立场，以校准风险评估逻辑。
4. 针对 CUAD 风险类别和特定文件清单（如 NDA 与支付协议）扫描文本。
5. 技能生成一份全面的 Markdown 报告，包括执行摘要、关键条款表和按优先级排序的风险警示。
6. 基于市场标准基准，提供可操作的修订建议和谈判优先级。

合同审查 配置指南

要将此技能集成到您的 Openclaw Skills 环境中，请确保您的 AI 智能体具有必要的文件系统权限。使用以下步骤进行安装：

git clone https://github.com/IrisGoLab/contract-review-skill.git

在智能体配置中启用以下工具以支持文档解析和编辑：Read、Write、Edit、Grep 和 Glob。

合同审查 数据架构与分类体系

该技能将分析结果组织成结构化分类，以确保不同文档类型之间的一致性。数据分类如下：

name: contract-review
description: Legal contract analysis using CUAD dataset (41 risk categories). Supports NDA, SaaS, M&A, employment, payment/merchant, and finder/broker agreements. Identifies red flags, suggests redlines, compares to market standards.
version: 1.0.0
author: IrisGo.AI
license: MIT
metadata: {"tags":["legal","contracts","nda","saas","due-diligence"],"repository":"https://github.com/IrisGoLab/contract-review-skill"}
allowed-tools:
  - Read
  - Write
  - Edit
  - Grep
  - Glob

Contract Review

Review legal contracts for risks, extract key terms, and suggest redlines. Built on the CUAD dataset (41 risk categories), ContractEval benchmarks, and LegalBench.

Disclaimer: This skill provides informational analysis only. It is not legal advice. Material terms should be reviewed by qualified legal counsel before signing.

When to Activate

• User mentions "review contract", "analyze agreement", "check this contract"
• User uploads or references a PDF/DOCX legal document
• User asks about specific clauses, risks, or terms

Step 1: Pre-Review Checklist

Before analyzing content, verify document completeness:

• Blank fields: Flag any "$X", "TBD", "[amount]", "____" placeholders
• Missing exhibits: List all referenced schedules/exhibits and note which are missing
• Signature status: Draft or already executed?
• All pages present: Check for truncation or missing sections

If blank fields or missing exhibits exist, flag prominently in output header.

Step 2: Identify Document Type & User Position

Ask if unclear: "Which party are you? (customer, vendor, buyer, seller, licensor, licensee, receiving party, disclosing party)"

This affects what's "risky":

• Customer reviewing vendor agreement: flag vendor-favorable terms
• Vendor reviewing own template: flag customer-favorable terms
• Buyer in M&A: flag seller-favorable terms
• Seller in M&A: flag buyer-favorable terms
• Receiving party in NDA: flag disclosing party-favorable terms

Assess power dynamic:

• Startup vs. large enterprise? (limited negotiating leverage)
• Standard form vs. negotiated? (some terms non-negotiable)
• Regulated industry? (some terms legally required)

Output Format

Use markdown for readable, scannable output.

Example Output

# Contract Review: [Document Name]

**Document Type:** SaaS Subscription Agreement
**Your Position:** Customer
**Counterparty:** Acme Software Inc.
**Risk Level:** Medium
**Document Status:** Draft / Executed on [date]

## Pre-Signing Alerts

- **Blank field:** Fee amount in Section 4.1 is "$____"
- **Missing exhibit:** Exhibit B (SLA) referenced but not attached

## Executive Summary

Standard vendor agreement with some one-sided terms. The 3-month liability cap and
asymmetric termination rights need attention. Data ownership is clear.

---

## Key Terms

| Term | Value | Location |
|------|-------|----------|
| Initial Term | 12 months | Section 8.1 |
| Auto-Renewal | 12-month periods, 60-day notice | Section 8.2 |
| Liability Cap | 3 months' fees | Section 10.2 |
| Governing Law | Delaware | Section 12.1 |

---

## Red Flags (Quick Scan)

| Flag | Found | Location |
|------|-------|----------|
| Liability cap < 6 months | Yes | Section 10.2 |
| Uncapped indemnification | No | -- |
| Unilateral amendment rights | Yes | Section 14.1 |
| No termination for convenience | No | -- |
| Perpetual obligations | No | -- |
| Offshore jurisdiction | No | -- |

---

## Risk Analysis

### Critical

**Limitation of Liability** (Section 10.2)
> "Liability shall not exceed fees paid in the preceding three (3) months"

- **Issue:** 3-month cap is below market standard (typically 12 months)
- **Risk:** For $120K annual contract, liability capped at $30K
- **Market Standard:** 12 months' fees
- **Negotiability:** Medium -- most vendors accept 6-12 months
- **Redline:** Change "three (3) months" to "twelve (12) months"
- **Fallback:** Accept 6 months as compromise

---

### Important

**Termination for Convenience** (Section 8.5)
> "Vendor may terminate for any reason upon 30 days notice"

- **Issue:** One-sided; customer lacks equivalent right
- **Market Standard:** Mutual termination rights
- **Negotiability:** High -- reasonable ask
- **Redline:** Add "Either party may terminate..." or change to "90 days"

---

### Reviewed & Acceptable

| Category | Status | Notes |
|----------|--------|-------|
| Data Ownership | OK | Customer owns all customer data |
| IP Rights | OK | Clear separation, no broad assignment |
| Confidentiality | OK | Mutual, 3-year term, standard exceptions |
| Governing Law | OK | Delaware -- neutral for commercial |

---

## Missing Provisions

| Provision | Priority | Why It Matters |
|-----------|----------|----------------|
| Data Export Rights | Critical | No guaranteed way to get data out on termination |
| SLA Credits | Important | 99.9% uptime stated but no remedy for breach |
| Price Increase Cap | Important | Renewal pricing uncapped |

**Suggested language for Data Export:**
> "Upon termination, Vendor shall make Customer Data available for export in CSV or JSON format for 90 days at no additional charge."

---

## Internal Consistency Issues

- Section 5.2 references "Exhibit C" but no Exhibit C exists
- "Confidential Information" defined in Section 3.1 but used lowercase in Section 7

---

## Negotiation Priority

| # | Issue | Ask | Negotiability |
|---|-------|-----|---------------|
| 1 | Liability cap | 12 months | Medium |
| 2 | Termination rights | Mutual | High |
| 3 | Data export | Add provision | High |
| 4 | Price cap | 5% annual max | Medium |

---

*This review is for informational purposes only. Material terms should be reviewed by qualified legal counsel.*

Red Flags Quick Scan

Check these danger signs FIRST before deep analysis:

Document Type Checklists

NDA Checklist

SaaS/MSA Checklist

Payment/Merchant Agreement Checklist

M&A Agreement Checklist

Finder/Broker Agreement Checklist

Risk Categories (CUAD 41 + Extensions)

Document Basics

• Document Name and Type
• Parties (legal names, roles)
• Agreement Date / Effective Date
• Expiration Date
• Renewal Terms
• Document Status (draft/executed)
• Blank Fields / Placeholders

Term & Termination

• Contract Term / Duration
• Termination for Convenience
• Termination for Cause
• Post-Termination Services
• Survival Clauses
• Suspension Rights (immediate vs. with notice)
• Cure Periods

Assignment & Control

• Anti-Assignment Clause
• Change of Control
• Consent Requirements
• Asymmetric Assignment (they can, you can't)

Financial Terms

• Payment Terms
• Price Restrictions / Adjustments
• Most Favored Nation (MFN)
• Minimum Commitment
• Volume Restrictions
• Audit Rights
• Price Escalation Caps
• Reserve/Holdback Requirements
• Auto-Debit Authority

Liability & Risk

• Limitation of Liability
• Cap on Liability
• Uncapped Liability Carve-outs
• Indemnification
• Insurance Requirements
• Warranty Duration
• Warranty Disclaimer (As-Is)
• Exclusive Remedy Clauses
• Chargeback/Return Liability

IP & Confidentiality

• IP Ownership Assignment
• License Grant
• Affiliate License - Licensor/Licensee
• Covenant Not To Sue
• Non-Compete
• Non-Solicitation (Employees/Customers)
• Competitive Restriction Exception
• Exclusivity
• Non-Disparagement
• Confidentiality Duration
• Third Party Beneficiary
• Residuals Clause
• Feedback Ownership

Dispute Resolution

• Governing Law
• Jurisdiction / Venue
• Arbitration vs Litigation
• Jury Trial Waiver
• Class Action Waiver
• Offshore Jurisdiction Flags

Special Provisions

• ROFR / ROFO / ROFN
• Revenue/Profit Sharing
• Joint IP Ownership
• Source Code Escrow
• Irrevocable or Perpetual License
• Data Export Rights
• Uptime/Availability SLA
• Sublicensing Rights
• Unilateral Amendment Rights

Market Standard Benchmarks

Negotiability Guide

Power dynamic factors:

• Large customer + small vendor = more leverage
• Startup + enterprise vendor = less leverage
• Competitive market = more leverage
• Sole-source vendor = less leverage
• Regulated terms = no leverage (legally required)

Jurisdiction Notes

Non-Competes:

• California, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Minnesota: Generally void
• Other states: Reasonableness test applies

Choice of Law:

• Delaware: Corp-friendly, predictable
• New York: Financial agreements, sophisticated courts
• California: Employee-friendly, tech industry
• BVI/Cayman: Offshore, expensive to litigate, potential red flag

Arbitration Venues:

• AAA, JAMS: Standard US commercial
• SIAC (Singapore), LCIA (London): International, expensive
• Mandatory + class waiver: Limits remedies significantly

Guardrails

• Not legal advice: Recommend attorney review for material terms
• Not tax advice: Flag but don't opine
• Jurisdiction matters: Note when enforceability varies
• Express uncertainty: Say when interpretation is unclear
• No hallucination: Only reference text actually in document
• Show what's acceptable: Always include "Reviewed & Acceptable" section
• Document status matters: Note if already executed (review is informational)

License

MIT License. Open source contribution by IrisGo.AI.