Legal Contract Review Playbook

Legal Contract Review Playbook

Overview

Provides a structured contract review workflow covering parties, obligations, risk allocation, remedies, and negotiation notes. This is a descriptive OpenClaw skill for legal-industry workflow support. It provides structured frameworks, checklists, templates, and issue-spotting prompts. It does not execute code, call external APIs, access legal databases, retrieve court records, automate filings, or perform legal services.

When to Use

• Reviewing commercial contracts
• Preparing markup notes
• Summarizing contractual risks for stakeholders

Target Users

• Contract attorneys
• In-house counsel
• Procurement legal teams
• Business reviewers

Inputs to Collect

• Matter or project context, including jurisdiction if known
• Relevant facts, documents, parties, dates, and constraints
• Desired output format, audience, and level of detail
• Known deadlines, risk concerns, or review priorities

Core Modules

1. Contract metadata capture — provides structured prompts, checklists, and review fields for this area.
2. Key obligation map — provides structured prompts, checklists, and review fields for this area.
3. Risk clause checklist — provides structured prompts, checklists, and review fields for this area.
4. Fallback position notes — provides structured prompts, checklists, and review fields for this area.
5. Executive summary template — provides structured prompts, checklists, and review fields for this area.

Workflow

1. Confirm the user's legal workflow goal and the relevant practice context.
2. Ask for missing facts, documents, dates, parties, jurisdiction, and audience where needed.
3. Apply the modules below as a structured thinking framework.
4. Produce checklists, templates, matrices, memos, or planning aids tailored to the user's context.
5. Flag uncertainty, verification needs, deadlines, ethics concerns, confidentiality issues, and attorney-review points.

Expected Outputs

• Contract review checklist
• Issue list
• Negotiation note template
• Stakeholder summary

Example Prompts

• "Give me a contract review checklist for a SaaS agreement."
• "Help structure a risk summary for this vendor contract."

Usage Scenarios

Scenario 1

User input: "Review this SaaS subscription agreement and flag all one-sided terms."

Expected output: Clause-by-clause analysis with risk ratings (red/yellow/green), negotiation positions for auto-renewal, data ownership, limitation of liability, and SLA gaps.

Scenario 2

User input: "I need a playbook for reviewing influencer marketing contracts from a brand-side perspective."

Expected output: Brand-protective playbook with mandatory clauses (exclusivity, content ownership, morality clause, performance metrics), fallback positions, and dealbreaker checklist.

Scenario 3

User input: "Summarize the key risks in this 40-page M&A purchase agreement for the CFO."

Expected output: One-page stakeholder summary highlighting top 5 risks (earn-out structure, indemnity caps, working capital adjustment, non-compete scope, closing conditions) with business impact estimates.

Scenario 4: 装修公司给的合同条款看着有点坑

User input: "找了本地一家装修公司做半包，合同好几页，有些条款感觉有坑（比如'增项超过10%客户自费'），帮我审一下。" Expected output: 审查装修合同的重点条款：1）工程范围——是否有详细的项目清单和品牌型号？2）增项管理——'超过10%客户自费'条款存在模糊性，建议改为'增项须甲乙双方书面确认后方可施工'；3）付款节点——按进度付款（签合同30%、水电验收30%、泥木验收30%、竣工验收10%）而不是按时间；4）违约责任——延期交工的违约金（约定按日万分之五）；5）质保期——隐蔽工程5年，其他2年。建议对比土巴兔/齐家网的合同范本。

Safety and Legal Limitations

• This skill provides informational workflow support only and is not legal advice.
• It does not create an attorney-client relationship and does not replace review by a qualified attorney.
• Laws, court rules, deadlines, ethics duties, privilege, confidentiality, and professional responsibility rules vary by jurisdiction and matter.
• Users must verify all legal authorities, filing requirements, deadlines, facts, citations, and strategic decisions with qualified counsel.
• The skill must not be used to fabricate evidence, coach false testimony, evade regulation, access data unlawfully, or bypass confidentiality obligations.
• Specific limitation for this skill: Framework only; not a substitute for jurisdiction-specific legal review or attorney judgment.

Acceptance Criteria

• Package is descriptive only: no handler.py, scripts, external APIs, network calls, or command execution.
• SKILL.md and README.md are English-first and include an explicit legal-information disclaimer.
• Outputs are frameworks, checklists, templates, or planning aids rather than legal conclusions.
• Includes target users, when-to-use guidance, inputs, workflow, outputs, examples, and safety limitations.
• skill.json contains unique slug, tags, trigger keywords, requires_api=false, and readiness=stable.