# Batch Nda Generation Multi Party > Generation of a batch of individualized NDAs from a master template, with counterparty-specific modifications for entity type, directionality, governing law, and existing agreement conflicts, accompanied by a cover memorandum flagging all issues at a categorical level. - Skill: `finchipaiorg/batch-nda-generation-multi-party` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add finchipaiorg/batch-nda-generation-multi-party` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/finchipaiorg/batch-nda-generation-multi-party/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: FinchipAIOrg (https://skillmd.com/u/finchipaiorg) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/finchipaiorg/batch-nda-generation-multi-party --- # Skill: Batch NDA Generation from Master Template ## 1. Subject-matter triage (only if applicable) - Treat the onboarding list as a multi-counterparty drafting exercise, not a single-form cleanup. - First determine whether each counterparty needs an individualized NDA, a mutual NDA, or a unilateral NDA, and whether any name or entity-status cleanup is required before drafting. - Check whether the template can be used as-is for each counterparty or whether local-law, authority, or prior-agreement issues require clause-level changes. - Draft the agreements and the cover memorandum together, but complete the NDAs first and use the memorandum to surface the modifications and risks across the batch. ## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting - Applying the template uniformly across all counterparties without tailoring for entity type, disclosure direction, governing law, or authority to sign. - Producing the NDAs without a companion memorandum that identifies the issues raised by each draft and gives a usable next step. - Missing overlap with an existing NDA for the same relationship, creating inconsistent or duplicative confidentiality obligations. - Using a mutual structure where only one side will receive information, or leaving mutual obligations in place after the disclosure pattern shows they are unnecessary. - Failing to correct legal name / trade name discrepancies, signature-block authority, or other execution mechanics that determine whether the NDA is properly tied to the right party. - Ignoring special risk categories that should be flagged in the memo, including minority capacity, outside restrictive obligations, and jurisdiction-specific restrictions on solicitation-style language. - Describing modifications in the memo without pairing each issue with a practical recommendation. ## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply - Capacity to contract: verify whether any counterparty may lack full capacity and, if so, consider guardian or parent execution, deferral, or another legally effective signing path. - Authority and entity form: use the correct legal name, capacity, and signing authority for individuals, corporations, partnerships, and other entity forms; tie the signature block to the actual signatory capacity. - Trade name accuracy: if a counterparty operates under a DBA or similar name, identify the legal entity and the trade name together so the contract attaches to the correct party. - Mutual versus unilateral confidentiality structure: align the obligation structure with the actual information flow rather than defaulting to reciprocity. - Governing law and forum selection: choose and review governing law with the counterparty’s location and the draft’s restrictive provisions in mind. - Restrictive-covenant sensitivity: where the draft includes solicitation or related employee-protection language, ensure the clause is consistent with the selected law and its limits. - Existing agreement conflict analysis: compare any prior NDA with the same counterparty for differences in scope, term, survival, confidentiality definition, and termination mechanics. - Outside-obligation risk: if a counterparty may be bound by a separate non-compete or similar restriction, add a representation that execution and performance do not breach outside obligations. - General legal propositions in the memo should be tied to the governing source or recognized practice authority used for the drafting point; avoid unexplained conclusions. ## 4. Analytical scaffolds - For each counterparty, run the same checklist: 1. identify the legal name, entity type, and required signer; 2. determine whether the NDA should be mutual or unilateral; 3. confirm governing law and any clause changes required by that law; 4. check for an existing NDA with the same counterparty; 5. test capacity, authority, and any trade-name issue; 6. flag any outside restrictive-obligation risk. - Where a state-law restriction may affect solicitation-style language, remove or narrow the affected language and add any needed saving or carve-out language. - Where the disclosure pattern is one-way, convert the form to unilateral rather than preserving unused reciprocity. - Where a prior NDA exists, compare the key operative terms and decide whether the new draft should supersede, amend, or coexist only if the terms do not conflict. - For partnerships or similar entities, ensure the signature block and authority language match the entity’s execution mechanics. - For a DBA situation, reflect both the underlying legal entity and the trade name in the party identification section. - For any possible outside restriction, add a representation that the NDA does not breach existing commitments and note whether access limits or timing changes should be considered. - In the cover memorandum, do not merely restate edits; identify each issue, state the practical consequence, and give a recommendation. ## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships (only if applicable) - The batch should be drafted counterparty by counterparty, with each NDA tied to the corresponding onboarding entry and file name. - The memorandum should track the same numbering as the drafted NDAs so the client can cross-reference issues quickly. - Existing NDA conflicts should be resolved before circulation of the new draft; if they cannot be reconciled cleanly, the memorandum should explain why the relationship cannot safely proceed under both documents without clarification. - Execution mechanics matter before delivery: authority, entity identification, and governing law should be settled in the draft before the package is sent out. - The memorandum is secondary to the NDA package, but it must be completed contemporaneously so the client receives a usable issue-spotting record with the drafts. ## 6. Output structure conventions - Produce one finished NDA for each listed counterparty, customized in the body and signature block as needed. - Use a conventional NDA structure with the tailoring embedded where it matters; do not rely on a generic cover note to fix contract text. - Provide a separate cover memorandum that is organized by NDA number and describes, for each draft, the modifications made, the issues flagged, and the recommended next step. - The memorandum should be practical and concise: identify the issue, the governing drafting concern, and the action to take. - Before finishing, confirm that every named NDA file and the memorandum file are complete, non-empty, and contain operative drafting rather than a description of what should be drafted.