Review Legal Clauses
Get Started with This SkillOverview
Examine contract clauses for completeness, risks, and compliance issues. Flags potential problems and suggests improvements in plain language.
Getting Started
Add your source materials to the project workspace, then activate the Review Legal Clauses skill. The agent will guide you through the process step by step.
Example Conversation
You: Review this NDA for missing protections and liability risks. I’ve uploaded the draft.
Agent: I’ve reviewed the NDA. I’ve gone through each clause for completeness, risk, and plain-language issues. A couple of clarifications: (1) Are you the disclosing or receiving party? (2) Any specific concerns (e.g. non-solicit, carve-outs for public domain)?
You: We’re the receiving party. I’m worried about overbroad definitions of “Confidential Information” and no carve-outs.
Agent: I’ve saved the review to
output/nda-clause-review.md. High-level: the definition of Confidential Information is broad and could catch public or independently developed information — I’ve suggested carve-outs (public domain, known to recipient, independently developed, rightfully received from others). I’ve also flagged the non-solicit clause as potentially one-sided and suggested a mutual or time-limited version. All findings are in plain language with severity (high/medium/low). Want to focus on the definition and carve-outs first?
Sample Output Excerpt
Below is a representative excerpt from a legal clause review report.
Clause review summary
| Clause / topic | Severity | Issue | Suggestion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Definition of Confidential Information | High | Very broad; no carve-outs for public domain, pre-existing knowledge, or independent development | Add standard carve-outs: (a) public domain, (b) known to recipient prior to disclosure, (c) independently developed without use of disclosed info, (d) rightfully received from third party without restriction. |
| Non-solicit | Medium | One-way (restricts receiving party only); 12-month term with no geographic limit | Consider mutual non-solicit and/or 12-month limit tied to individuals with material contact. |
| Return of materials | Low | Obligation to return or destroy is clear; “certify in writing” is good | No change needed. |
| Liability | Medium | No cap; indemnity for breach is uncapped | Consider cap (e.g. amount paid under NDA or 12 months’ fees) and clarify that indemnity does not double-count direct damages. |