# Draft Markup Of Arbitration Agreement > Ensures an arbitration agreement markup produces two distinct deliverables, annotates each change with the applicable playbook position tier, and explains institutional choice and governing-law implications at a procedural level. - Skill: `finchipaiorg/draft-markup-of-arbitration-agreement` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add finchipaiorg/draft-markup-of-arbitration-agreement` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/finchipaiorg/draft-markup-of-arbitration-agreement/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/draft-markup-of-arbitration-agreement --- # Skill: Arbitration Agreement Markup ## 1. Subject-matter triage (only if applicable) - Confirm the task is a markup/draft-redline assignment, not a pure issue memo. - Identify the operative artifact to be marked up first, then treat any memo as secondary. - If the source set contains more than one agreement version, amendment, or parallel instruction set, enumerate each governing source before analyzing changes. - If only one agreement is in scope, state that expressly and proceed on that basis. ## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting - Produces only a cover memo and omits a separately tracked redlined agreement, leaving no negotiable markup. - Relies on formatting alone to show edits, so changes disappear or become ambiguous after export. - Adds comments without tying each change to the client’s playbook tier, making priority and trade posture unclear. - Treats institutional selection as boilerplate instead of explaining fit for the anticipated dispute profile. - States a governing-law preference without explaining the negotiation leverage, enforceability, or procedural consequences behind it. - Blends the primary markup and secondary summary into one document, obscuring the distinct purpose of each deliverable. ## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply - Client playbooks typically sort positions into Required, Preferred, and Fallback; comments should use that hierarchy consistently so the reader can distinguish non-negotiables from tradeable points. - Arbitration clauses should be reviewed for institution, seat, governing law, appointment mechanics, interim relief, consolidation/joinder, confidentiality, discovery scope, and award enforceability. - Institutional choice should be matched to the expected dispute type, cross-border posture, cost profile, and procedural sophistication; the comment should explain why the selected institution is the best fit and, where relevant, why an alternative better tracks the dispute profile. - Governing law should be framed in negotiation terms: the clause may affect interpretation, available remedies, procedural defaults, and enforceability. - Any legal proposition stated in the markup or memo should be anchored to a controlling authority where one is invoked in the source set or is standard for the issue, rather than presented as a naked conclusion. - For cross-border arbitration concepts, the New York Convention, UNCITRAL Model Law, applicable arbitration statute, and institutional rules are the usual reference points; use the governing authority that matches the source materials and venue. ## 4. Analytical scaffolds - Draft the redlined agreement first, then the cover memo after the markup exists and is usable. - Show every substantive edit in a plain-text-stable form in addition to any visible track changes: - [DELETED: …] - [INSERTED: …] - [REPLACED: old → new] - Attach a short rationale comment to each substantive edit so the reason for the change survives conversion. - In each comment, identify the playbook tier and the negotiation posture: - why the change is mandatory, strongly preferred, or acceptable only as a compromise; - what leverage point it protects; - what risk it reduces or preserves. - For the institution clause, explain whether the chosen forum is appropriate for the anticipated dispute set, and whether its procedures, administrative costs, and appointment mechanics fit the transaction. - For the governing-law clause, explain why the client’s preferred law is selected and why the counterparty’s preferred law is resisted, focusing on practical consequences rather than abstract preference. - Where the clause interacts with seat, venue, interim relief, confidentiality, enforcement, or consolidation, note that interaction in the comment so the reader can see the clause as part of a system, not in isolation. - If multiple candidate institutions, laws, or seats are under consideration in the source materials, analyze each one separately before selecting the recommended position; do not collapse distinct alternatives into one generalized comment. ## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships (only if applicable) - Track how the arbitration clause operates across the life of the relationship: formation, dispute escalation, appointment, interim relief, hearing, award, and enforcement. - Note whether a clause is intended to govern disputes arising now, disputes under a future amendment, or disputes surviving termination. - If the markup touches related provisions elsewhere in the agreement, cross-reference those provisions in the rationale so the clause package is read consistently. - Treat hierarchy explicitly where there is a conflict between the arbitration clause, an incorporated playbook position, and any general boilerplate; the more specific instruction should control unless the source materials say otherwise. ## 6. Output structure conventions - Produce two separate files, in this order: the redlined arbitration agreement first, then the cover memo. - The redlined agreement is the primary deliverable and must contain the operative clause text, not merely a description of proposed edits. - The redlined agreement should be readable in plain text even if formatting is stripped; every substantive change must be identifiable from the text itself. - Every substantive edit should carry a short comment that states the rationale and the applicable playbook tier. - The cover memo should summarize the changes by priority, with Required items first, then Preferred, then Fallback. - The memo should explain the practical consequence of each change and identify any negotiation tradeoff or fallback path. - End the memo with clear next-step recommendations directed to the appropriate deal team role, with timing tied to the signing, markup, or negotiation milestone if one is available from the source materials. - Before finishing, confirm that each deliverable file exists, is non-empty, and contains operative markup or memo content rather than a placeholder or summary of what should be drafted.