本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

codexkit-contract-risk-review

Review commercial contracts, NDAs, MSAs, SOWs, and vendor agreements for obligation clarity, risk allocation, termination, data handling, and negotiation red flags. Use when a user needs a structured contract summary, red flag list, fallback positions, or clause-by-clause review. Do not use as jurisdiction-specific legal advice, litigation strategy, or final legal sign-off.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(5)

  • SKILL.md3.3 KB
  • agents/openai.yaml240 B
  • examples/common-mistakes.md861 B
  • examples/good-output.md939 B
  • verification/checklist.md1.4 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Contract Risk Review

Purpose

Surface business and contractual risk quickly so a human reviewer can negotiate or escalate intelligently.

When to use

  • A contract needs first-pass risk review before legal or procurement sign-off.
  • A business owner wants obligations, liabilities, and red flags summarized.
  • A negotiation needs fallback positions and open questions.

When not to use

  • The user needs formal legal advice for a specific jurisdiction.
  • The task is drafting litigation arguments or dispute strategy.

Inputs

  • contract text or key clauses
  • deal context, commercial goals, and fallback positions
  • known red lines, approval thresholds, and data or security concerns

Procedure

  1. Classify the agreement type and commercial stakes.
  2. Review key clause families: scope, fees, term, liability, IP, confidentiality, data, termination, and dispute language.
  3. Extract obligations, asymmetries, unusual exposure, and missing protections.
  4. Rate issues by business impact and negotiation urgency.
  5. Suggest fallback language or negotiation positions without pretending to replace counsel.
  6. Call out where legal review is mandatory.

Output

  • executive contract summary
  • clause-by-clause risk table
  • top red flags and why they matter
  • fallback positions or negotiation notes
  • unresolved questions for counsel or stakeholders

Definition of done

  • A business owner can see the highest-risk clauses quickly.
  • Missing protections and unclear obligations are explicit.
  • The output states where human legal review is still required.

Examples

  • "Review this vendor MSA and flag the clauses we should negotiate before signing."
  • "Summarize our obligations and main risks in this customer SOW."

Quality Criteria

  • Every finding is tied to a specific evidence source (log, test, metric)
  • Pass/fail criteria are binary and measurable — no subjective judgments
  • Severity levels are assigned with clear thresholds
  • Remediation steps are provided for all critical and high findings

Verification (4C)

CheckQuestion
CorrectnessAre all pass/fail criteria applied against the correct standard or rule?
CompletenessWere all required dimensions or checklist items evaluated?
Context-fitDoes the verification scope match the actual risk level of the deliverable?
ConsequenceIf this passed verification but had a hidden flaw, what is the worst-case impact?

Edge Cases

  • Incomplete data for full assessment — Document which checks were limited and flag for re-verification when data becomes available.
  • Ambiguous pass/fail criteria — Request clarification from the standard owner before scoring. Mark as 'Needs Review'.
  • Multiple overlapping standards — Identify the governing standard and note where others diverge.

Changelog

  • v1.0.0 — Initial release

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Design rigorous A/B test plans with hypothesis, sample size calculation, Minimum Detectable Effect (MDE), randomization strategy, and decision rules. Includes guardrail metrics and rollout playbook. Use when planning product experiments, conversion optimization, or data-driven feature decisions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

hoavdc/CodexKit252026年10月11日 更新

Review REST and GraphQL API designs for consistency, usability, and best practices. Covers naming conventions, versioning strategy, error format, pagination, authentication patterns, and breaking change detection. Use when reviewing API specs, designing new APIs, or auditing existing endpoints.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

hoavdc/CodexKit252026年10月11日 更新

Write Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) following the Michael Nygard format. Captures context, options considered, decision rationale, and consequences. Use when making technology choices, framework selections, or any architectural decision that future developers need to understand.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

hoavdc/CodexKit252026年10月11日 更新

Assess organizational readiness for financial audits (internal or external). Map assertions to account balances, check evidence completeness, score readiness using a Red/Amber/Green framework, and generate a remediation timeline. Aligned with SOX, IFRS, and GAAP audit standards. Use before scheduled audits or when preparing for first-time compliance.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

hoavdc/CodexKit252026年10月11日 更新

Design safe recurring Codex automations with clear prompts, outputs, schedules, and gating rules.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

hoavdc/CodexKit252026年10月11日 更新

Refine Product Backlog Items to meet INVEST criteria. Write User Stories with Acceptance Criteria in Given/When/Then format, estimate with Story Points, and flag dependencies. Use before sprint planning when backlog items need grooming. Do not use to prioritize the backlog — that is the Product Owner's decision.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

hoavdc/CodexKit252026年10月11日 更新

hoavdc のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する