Legal Contract Review Playbook#

Overview#

Provides a structured contract review workflow covering parties, obligations, risk allocation, remedies, and negotiation notes. This is a descriptive OpenClaw skill for legal-industry workflow support. It provides structured frameworks, checklists, templates, and issue-spotting prompts. It does not execute code, call external APIs, access legal databases, retrieve court records, automate filings, or perform legal services.

When to Use#

• Reviewing commercial contracts
• Preparing markup notes
• Summarizing contractual risks for stakeholders

Target Users#

• Contract attorneys
• In-house counsel
• Procurement legal teams
• Business reviewers

Inputs to Collect#

• Matter or project context, including jurisdiction if known
• Relevant facts, documents, parties, dates, and constraints
• Desired output format, audience, and level of detail
• Known deadlines, risk concerns, or review priorities

Core Modules#

1. Contract metadata capture — provides structured prompts, checklists, and review fields for this area.
2. Key obligation map — provides structured prompts, checklists, and review fields for this area.
3. Risk clause checklist — provides structured prompts, checklists, and review fields for this area.
4. Fallback position notes — provides structured prompts, checklists, and review fields for this area.
5. Executive summary template — provides structured prompts, checklists, and review fields for this area.

Workflow#

1. Confirm the user's legal workflow goal and the relevant practice context.
2. Ask for missing facts, documents, dates, parties, jurisdiction, and audience where needed.
3. Apply the modules below as a structured thinking framework.
4. Produce checklists, templates, matrices, memos, or planning aids tailored to the user's context.
5. Flag uncertainty, verification needs, deadlines, ethics concerns, confidentiality issues, and attorney-review points.

Expected Outputs#

• Contract review checklist
• Issue list
• Negotiation note template
• Stakeholder summary

Example Prompts#

• "Give me a contract review checklist for a SaaS agreement."
• "Help structure a risk summary for this vendor contract."

Usage Scenarios#

Scenario 1#

User input: "Review this SaaS subscription agreement and flag all one-sided terms."

Expected output: Clause-by-clause analysis with risk ratings (red/yellow/green), negotiation positions for auto-renewal, data ownership, limitation of liability, and SLA gaps.

Scenario 2#

User input: "I need a playbook for reviewing influencer marketing contracts from a brand-side perspective."

Expected output: Brand-protective playbook with mandatory clauses (exclusivity, content ownership, morality clause, performance metrics), fallback positions, and dealbreaker checklist.

Scenario 3#

User input: "Summarize the key risks in this 40-page M&A purchase agreement for the CFO."

Expected output: One-page stakeholder summary highlighting top 5 risks (earn-out structure, indemnity caps, working capital adjustment, non-compete scope, closing conditions) with business impact estimates.

Scenario 4: 装修公司给的合同条款看着有点坑#

User input: "找了本地一家装修公司做半包，合同好几页，有些条款感觉有坑（比如'增项超过10%客户自费'），帮我审一下。" Expected output: 审查装修合同的重点条款：1）工程范围——是否有详细的项目清单和品牌型号？2）增项管理——'超过10%客户自费'条款存在模糊性，建议改为'增项须甲乙双方书面确认后方可施工'；3）付款节点——按进度付款（签合同30%、水电验收30%、泥木验收30%、竣工验收10%）而不是按时间；4）违约责任——延期交工的违约金（约定按日万分之五）；5）质保期——隐蔽工程5年，其他2年。建议对比土巴兔/齐家网的合同范本。

Safety and Legal Limitations#

• This skill provides informational workflow support only and is not legal advice.
• It does not create an attorney-client relationship and does not replace review by a qualified attorney.
• Laws, court rules, deadlines, ethics duties, privilege, confidentiality, and professional responsibility rules vary by jurisdiction and matter.
• Users must verify all legal authorities, filing requirements, deadlines, facts, citations, and strategic decisions with qualified counsel.
• The skill must not be used to fabricate evidence, coach false testimony, evade regulation, access data unlawfully, or bypass confidentiality obligations.
• Specific limitation for this skill: Framework only; not a substitute for jurisdiction-specific legal review or attorney judgment.

Acceptance Criteria#

• Package is descriptive only: no handler.py, scripts, external APIs, network calls, or command execution.
• SKILL.md and README.md are English-first and include an explicit legal-information disclaimer.
• Outputs are frameworks, checklists, templates, or planning aids rather than legal conclusions.
• Includes target users, when-to-use guidance, inputs, workflow, outputs, examples, and safety limitations.
• skill.json contains unique slug, tags, trigger keywords, requires_api=false, and readiness=stable.