Contract Redliner
Read a contract and produce a contract-review.md with clause-by-clause analysis, risk ratings, replacement language in tracked-changes format, and negotiation talking points. Unlike contract-analyzer (which only flags issues), produce specific, drop-in replacement language for every problematic clause, ready for negotiation.
Contents
references/risk-categories.md -- the seven risk categories, what to look for in each, and the risk-rating system.
references/redline-format.md -- per-issue redline entry format and tracked-changes conventions.
references/output-template.md -- the full contract-review.md structure to generate.
references/contract-types.md -- per-contract-type focus areas and worked examples.
Workflow
Ingest the contract. Accept pasted text, a file path (.txt, .md, .pdf, .docx), or a URL. Load files with the Read tool; for PDFs use the pdf skill or Read PDF support. Parse the full text and identify all numbered sections, clauses, and subclauses.
Identify type and parties. Determine contract type, Party A (drafter/company), Party B (signer), governing law, effective date, and term. Apply the matching focus area from references/contract-types.md.
Analyze every section. Evaluate each section against the seven risk categories in references/risk-categories.md. Assign each section a rating (CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / ACCEPTABLE). Mark fair sections as ACCEPTABLE with a brief note -- do not skip them.
Generate redlines. For every issue, produce a redline entry per the format and tracked-changes conventions in references/redline-format.md. Provide complete, standalone replacement language plus a clean accepted version.
Write contract-review.md. Generate the file in the working directory (or the directory the user specifies) following references/output-template.md exactly and in order.
Mandatory Rules
Open every output with this disclaimer verbatim:
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: This analysis is informational only and does not constitute legal advice. Contract interpretation is jurisdiction-specific and fact-dependent. Always consult a qualified attorney before signing or modifying any legal agreement. This tool is designed to surface potential issues and suggest alternative language for discussion purposes only.
Never provide incomplete replacement language; every redline includes a full, usable clause.
Never present analysis without quoting the specific contract language being discussed.
Never assume jurisdiction-specific enforceability; note when a provision's enforceability varies by jurisdiction.
Always produce contract-review.md as the primary deliverable.
Always use tracked-changes format ([-deletion-] / [+insertion+]) for every suggested change.
Always include negotiation talking points for every issue rated MEDIUM or above.
Always analyze from the signing party's perspective unless told otherwise.
Quality Standards
- Be exhaustive. Review every section, not just the obviously problematic ones.
- Be specific. Quote exact language, reference exact section numbers, provide complete replacement text.
- Be practical. Frame suggestions a reasonable counterparty would accept; extreme positions undermine credibility.
- Be balanced. Note favorable provisions too -- this builds credibility for the items that need changing.
- Quantify where possible. Estimate liability exposure and calculate penalties when the contract permits.
- Reference market standards. When calling something non-standard, state what the market standard actually is.
1---2name: contract-redliner3description: Reads a contract and generates redline suggestions with replacement language. Identifies unfavorable terms, missing protections, ambiguous language, liability exposure, IP risks, termination traps, and auto-renewal gotchas. Produces a contract-review.md with clause-by-clause analysis, risk ratings, tracked changes format, and negotiation talking points. Use when the user wants redline markup, contract markup, or suggested contract edits.4---56# Contract Redliner78Read a contract and produce a `contract-review.md` with clause-by-clause analysis, risk ratings, replacement language in tracked-changes format, and negotiation talking points. Unlike contract-analyzer (which only flags issues), produce specific, drop-in replacement language for every problematic clause, ready for negotiation.910## Contents1112- `references/risk-categories.md` -- the seven risk categories, what to look for in each, and the risk-rating system.13- `references/redline-format.md` -- per-issue redline entry format and tracked-changes conventions.14- `references/output-template.md` -- the full `contract-review.md` structure to generate.15- `references/contract-types.md` -- per-contract-type focus areas and worked examples.1617## Workflow18191. **Ingest the contract.** Accept pasted text, a file path (`.txt`, `.md`, `.pdf`, `.docx`), or a URL. Load files with the Read tool; for PDFs use the pdf skill or Read PDF support. Parse the full text and identify all numbered sections, clauses, and subclauses.20212. **Identify type and parties.** Determine contract type, Party A (drafter/company), Party B (signer), governing law, effective date, and term. Apply the matching focus area from `references/contract-types.md`.22233. **Analyze every section.** Evaluate each section against the seven risk categories in `references/risk-categories.md`. Assign each section a rating (CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / ACCEPTABLE). Mark fair sections as ACCEPTABLE with a brief note -- do not skip them.24254. **Generate redlines.** For every issue, produce a redline entry per the format and tracked-changes conventions in `references/redline-format.md`. Provide complete, standalone replacement language plus a clean accepted version.26275. **Write `contract-review.md`.** Generate the file in the working directory (or the directory the user specifies) following `references/output-template.md` exactly and in order.2829## Mandatory Rules3031- Open every output with this disclaimer verbatim:3233 > LEGAL DISCLAIMER: This analysis is informational only and does not constitute legal advice. Contract interpretation is jurisdiction-specific and fact-dependent. Always consult a qualified attorney before signing or modifying any legal agreement. This tool is designed to surface potential issues and suggest alternative language for discussion purposes only.3435- Never provide incomplete replacement language; every redline includes a full, usable clause.36- Never present analysis without quoting the specific contract language being discussed.37- Never assume jurisdiction-specific enforceability; note when a provision's enforceability varies by jurisdiction.38- Always produce `contract-review.md` as the primary deliverable.39- Always use tracked-changes format (`[-deletion-]` / `[+insertion+]`) for every suggested change.40- Always include negotiation talking points for every issue rated MEDIUM or above.41- Always analyze from the signing party's perspective unless told otherwise.4243## Quality Standards4445- **Be exhaustive.** Review every section, not just the obviously problematic ones.46- **Be specific.** Quote exact language, reference exact section numbers, provide complete replacement text.47- **Be practical.** Frame suggestions a reasonable counterparty would accept; extreme positions undermine credibility.48- **Be balanced.** Note favorable provisions too -- this builds credibility for the items that need changing.49- **Quantify where possible.** Estimate liability exposure and calculate penalties when the contract permits.50- **Reference market standards.** When calling something non-standard, state what the market standard actually is.