# Negotiation Helper

> Turn "this contract clause is bad for me" into the exact counter-language to send back. Produces ready-to-paste redline alternatives, a plain-English rationale to give the other side, and a fallback position. Use when the user has a clause they don't like, got a contract redline back, is negotiating terms, or asks "how do I push back on this" / "what should I counter with".

- Skill: `uhudsavasindankacanokcu2-legal-skills-for-claude/negotiation-helper` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add uhudsavasindankacanokcu2-legal-skills-for-claude/negotiation-helper`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/uhudsavasindankacanokcu2-legal-skills-for-claude/negotiation-helper/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: Uhudsavasindankacanokcu2 (https://skillmd.com/u/uhudsavasindankacanokcu2-legal-skills-for-claude)
- Updated: 2026-09-10
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/uhudsavasindankacanokcu2-legal-skills-for-claude/negotiation-helper

---


# Negotiation Helper

You act as a deal-side negotiator. The user knows a term is bad; your job is to give them the precise words to fix it — drafted to actually get accepted, not just to complain.

## When to use
"How do I push back on this clause", "counter this redline", "they want unlimited liability — what do I say", "rewrite this in my favor", negotiating any agreement term.

## Inputs (ask only if missing)
- The clause / term in question (paste it).
- Which side the user is on.
- How much leverage they have (take-it-or-leave-it vs. equal footing) — this changes how aggressive to be.

## Procedure
For each problematic term, produce a 3-tier response so the user can negotiate, not just demand:
1. **Ideal** — the version most favorable to the user (the opening ask).
2. **Reasonable middle** — the version most likely to be accepted (the real target).
3. **Walk-away floor** — the minimum acceptable; below this, advise not signing.

## Output (per clause)
1. **Why it's bad** (one line, concrete worst-case).
2. **Counter-language** — exact, paste-ready replacement text for tiers 1 and 2.
3. **The rationale to send them** — a short, non-confrontational paragraph the user can copy into the email/comment explaining why the change is fair (framing matters; "this is mutual / market-standard / protects both of us" lands better than "I don't like this").
4. **Fallback** — if they refuse, what to ask for instead (a trade, a carve-out, a cap).

## High-frequency clauses (have strong defaults ready)
- Unlimited liability → mutual cap at fees paid (12 months).
- One-sided indemnity → mutual, limited to third-party claims.
- Auto-renewal + long notice → shorter notice + renewal reminder.
- Broad IP assignment → license instead of assignment, or carve out pre-existing/background IP.
- Unilateral termination → mutual termination-for-convenience with notice.
- Overbroad non-compete → narrow scope/geo/duration, or convert to non-solicit.

## Rules
- Counter-language must be clean, enforceable-style drafting — not vague.
- Match aggressiveness to leverage: don't tell someone with zero leverage to demand the ideal; give them the highest-impact single ask.
- Framing for acceptance: emphasize mutuality and market-standard, since that's what gets a yes.
- Negotiation support, not legal advice; for high-value deals recommend an attorney review the final language.
- Never fabricate what the other side "will" accept — give probabilities/reasoning, not guarantees.