gabrielmoreira Contract Review — Multi-Agent Orchestrator
Flagship contract review skill that spawns five parallel analysis agents, then aggregates their findings into a single executive report with a Contract Safety Score. Designed for founders, freelancers, and small-business operators who need to understand what they are signing without retaining outside counsel for every agreement.
Overview
Most contracts arrive as walls of dense legalese. A single-pass review misses nuance. This skill mirrors how a law firm reviews contracts: multiple specialists work in parallel, each with a different lens, then a senior partner synthesizes everything into a recommendation.
The orchestrator:
- Ingests the contract (file path or pasted text).
- Classifies the contract type and extracts metadata.
- Launches five parallel agents (risk, plain-English, missing protections, compliance, and party-balance analysis).
- Aggregates results into a unified report with a 0-100 Contract Safety Score.
Prerequisites
- The contract must be provided as a file path to a readable document (PDF, DOCX, TXT, MD) or pasted directly into the conversation.
- For file-based input the file must exist and be accessible via the Read tool.
- No external APIs or network access are required.
Instructions
Ingest the contract.
- If a file path is provided, read the full document with the Read tool.
- If the text is pasted, capture it verbatim.
- Confirm the document length; warn if it exceeds 50 pages.
Classify the contract. Determine the contract type from one of the following categories:
- Employment Agreement
- Independent Contractor / Freelance Agreement
- Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)
- Master Services Agreement (MSA)
- Software License / SaaS Agreement
- Terms of Service / Terms of Use
- Privacy Policy / Data Processing Agreement
- Partnership / Joint Venture Agreement
- Lease / Real Estate Agreement
- Other (describe)
Extract metadata. Capture: parties, effective date, term/duration, governing law, dispute resolution mechanism, total contract value (if stated).
Launch five parallel agents using the Task tool. Each agent receives the full contract text and returns structured findings.
Agent Focus Key Deliverable Risk Analyst Clause-by-clause risk scoring across 10 categories Risk heat map, poison pill flags Plain-English Translator 8th-grade reading level rewrite Clause-by-clause translation with flags Protection Auditor Gap analysis against type-specific checklists Missing protections with urgency ratings Compliance Checker Regulatory alignment (GDPR, CCPA, labor law basics) Compliance findings table Party-Balance Analyst Fairness tilt between the parties Asymmetry flags, one-sided clause list Aggregate results. Combine all five agent reports into a unified document with these sections:
- Executive Summary (3-5 bullet points)
- Contract Metadata table
- Contract Safety Score (0-100) with letter grade
- Risk Heat Map (top 5 risks ranked by severity)
- Plain-English Quick Reference (critical clauses only)
- Missing Protections (critical and important only)
- Compliance Findings
- Party-Balance Assessment
- Recommended Next Steps (negotiate, accept, reject, consult attorney)
Compute the Contract Safety Score. Weighted formula:
Component Weight Source Agent Risk severity (inverse) 30% Risk Analyst Protection coverage 25% Protection Auditor Party balance 20% Party-Balance Analyst Compliance alignment 15% Compliance Checker Language clarity 10% Plain-English Translator Letter grades: A (90-100), B (80-89), C (70-79), D (60-69), F (< 60).
Present the final report in the conversation and note the output filename.
Output
Filename: CONTRACT-REVIEW-{party-or-title}-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md
The report uses Markdown with tables and follows this structure:
# Contract Review Report
## Executive Summary
## Contract Metadata
## Contract Safety Score: [score]/100 ([grade])
## Risk Heat Map
## Plain-English Quick Reference
## Missing Protections
## Compliance Findings
## Party-Balance Assessment
## Recommended Next Steps
## Disclaimer
Error Handling
| Failure Mode | Cause | Resolution |
|---|---|---|
| File not found | Path is incorrect or file missing | Ask the user to confirm the file path |
| Unreadable format | Binary or encrypted document | Ask for a plain-text or PDF version |
| Document too long | Exceeds context window | Summarize by section; warn about truncation |
| Agent timeout | One parallel agent fails to return | Report partial results; note which agent failed |
| Ambiguous contract type | Cannot classify confidently | Ask the user to confirm the contract type |
Examples
Example 1 — File-based review:
User: Review the contract at
~/contracts/acme-msa-2026.pdf
The orchestrator reads the file, classifies it as a Master Services Agreement, launches five agents, and produces a report:
Contract Safety Score: 72/100 (C)
Top Risk: Unlimited indemnification liability (Section 8.2)
Missing: No force majeure clause, no data breach notification timeline
Balance: Tilts 65/35 in favor of Acme Corp
Recommendation: Negotiate Sections 8.2 and 12.1 before signing
Example 2 — Pasted text:
User: Review this contract: [pasted NDA text]
The orchestrator classifies it as a Mutual NDA, flags a unilateral non-solicitation clause hidden in the definitions, and scores it 58/100 (F).
Resources
- CommonPaper Standard Contracts — Open-source contract templates (CC BY 4.0) used as comparison baselines.
- American Bar Association Model Contract Clauses — Authoritative clause language references.
- Restatement (Second) of Contracts — American Law Institute's foundational contract law principles.
- GDPR Full Text — EU data protection regulation.
- CCPA Full Text — California Consumer Privacy Act via the CA Attorney General.
Legal Disclaimer: This skill provides AI-generated analysis for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, create an attorney-client relationship, or substitute for consultation with a qualified attorney. Contract interpretation depends on jurisdiction, context, and specific facts that an AI cannot fully evaluate. Always consult a licensed attorney before making legal decisions based on this analysis.