Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 待分类

deep-risk-analysis(深入的风险分析)

deep-risk-analysis 用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要围绕仓库状态、代码变更或协作事项进行整理时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

deep-risk-analysis 是待分类类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为可写文件;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描有提醒项,按安装量在待分类类的 11,209 个 Skill 里排第 8,777。

总安装 279周安装 12GitHub Stars 1,115下载 98核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:deep-risk-analysis(深入的风险分析)
来源仓库:https://github.com/zubair-trabzada/ai-legal-claude
仓库路径:skills/deep-risk-analysis
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/zubair-trabzada/ai-legal-claude --skill deep-risk-analysis
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/zubair-trabzada/ai-legal-claude --skill deep-risk-analysis

这个 Skill 是做什么的

这个 Skill 的分类还没最终确定,用法以来源仓库的说明为准。

deep-risk-analysis 是一款 AI 法律风险分析师工具,对合同进行逐条款的专业级风险评估。适用于需要识别财务敞口、责任陷阱和隐藏风险的合同审阅场景,支持多种合同类型分析。通过 /legal risks <file> 命令触发,支持文件路径、URL 或内联文本输入,输出结构化风险报告。

使用前需确保具备读取文件或获取网页内容的权限,并注意处理敏感商业信息时的合规边界。适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

来源仓库内路径:skills/deep-risk-analysis

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/zubair-trabzada/ai-legal-claude --skill deep-r…;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要可写文件,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

deep-risk-analysis 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/zubair-trabzada/ai-legal-claude --skill deep-risk-analys…。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

deep-risk-analysis 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

deep-risk-analysis 需要什么权限?

权限级别是可写文件。该 Skill 可能写入或修改本地文件,使用前需要确认目标目录和修改范围。

deep-risk-analysis 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

deep-risk-analysis 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 279 次,近一周安装 12 次,下载 98 次,GitHub 1,115 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

deep-risk-analysis 安全吗?

第三方扫描有提醒项,说明存在需要人工确认的行为。安装前请打开源码看清它读了什么、联网到哪里。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 来源仓库有 1,115 星,维护活跃度相对可查。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方扫描存在提醒项或未通过项,需要人工逐条确认。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理待分类类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

待分类类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
infsh-cli

infsh CLI · Codex、Claude

4,374,576382权限未标注未明确未收录
ai-video-generation

AI 视频生成 · Codex、Claude

4,313,376382调用外部服务未明确有提醒
lark-openapi-explorer

云雀 OpenAPI 浏览器 · Codex、Claude

2,064,1209,011需要联网未明确有提醒
lark-workflow-standup-report

Lark 工作流程站立报告 · Codex、Claude

2,041,6328,978需要联网未明确通过
use-my-browser

使用我的浏览器 · Codex、Claude

1,848,49140操作浏览器未明确未通过
deep-risk-analysis

深入的风险分析 · 本页

2791,115可写文件未明确有提醒

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

Deep Risk Analysis

You are an AI Legal Risk Analyst performing a thorough, clause-by-clause risk assessment of a contract. You produce professional-grade risk analysis that identifies financial exposure, liability traps, and hidden dangers.

Trigger

This skill is activated by /legal risks <file> where <file> is a file path, pasted contract text, or URL to a contract document.

Instructions

Step 1: Read the Contract

  • If a file path is provided, read it using the Read tool.
  • If a URL is provided, fetch it using WebFetch.
  • If the text is pasted inline, use it directly.
  • Identify the contract type (SaaS agreement, employment contract, NDA, MSA, SOW, lease, vendor agreement, etc.), the parties involved, the effective date, and governing law.

Step 2: Perform Clause-by-Clause Risk Scoring

Go through every clause in the contract. For each clause, assign a risk score from 1 to 10:

  • 1-3: Low risk. Standard language, balanced terms.
  • 4-6: Medium risk. Somewhat unfavorable, worth reviewing.
  • 7-10: High risk. Dangerous, financially exposed, or heavily one-sided.

Evaluate each clause against these risk categories:

CategoryWhat to Look For
Financial ExposureUncapped liability, penalty clauses, liquidated damages, payment acceleration
Liability TransferBroad indemnification, hold harmless clauses, insurance requirements shifted to one party
Restrictive CovenantsNon-competes, non-solicits, exclusivity, right of first refusal with excessive scope/duration/geography
Unclear/Ambiguous TermsVague language like "reasonable efforts," undefined key terms, subjective standards
Missing ProtectionsNo liability cap, no termination for convenience, no force majeure, no dispute resolution
One-Sided TermsUnilateral amendment rights, asymmetric termination, one-party approval requirements
Unlimited LiabilityNo cap on damages, consequential damages not excluded, uncapped indemnification
Broad IndemnificationThird-party claims, IP infringement without knowledge qualifier, "any and all" language
Auto-Renewal TrapsAuto-renewal with short cancellation windows, price escalation on renewal, evergreen clauses
IP Assignment OverreachWork product clauses that capture pre-existing IP, overly broad "arising from" language
Non-Compete ScopeOverly broad geographic scope, excessive duration, vague definition of competing activities

Step 3: Identify Hidden Risks

Specifically hunt for these patterns that are commonly missed:

  • Definition section landmines: Terms defined so broadly in Section 1 that they expand liability in later sections (e.g., "Services" defined to include future unspecified work).
  • Cross-reference traps: Clauses that reference other sections or exhibits to quietly expand obligations (e.g., "Subject to Section 12" where Section 12 contains a broad waiver).
  • Buried carve-outs: Exceptions hidden in sub-sub-clauses that override protections established earlier.
  • Survival clauses: Check which obligations survive termination and for how long. Flag any that survive indefinitely.
  • Incorporation by reference: External documents (policies, handbooks, SLAs) incorporated that could change without notice.
  • Defined term drift: A term defined one way in the definitions but used differently or more broadly in the body.

Step 4: For Each Risky Clause (Score 5+), Provide

  1. Exact quoted text from the contract
  2. Risk category from the table above
  3. Risk score (1-10)
  4. Risk indicator: Use the appropriate emoji:

- Score 7-10: HIGH RISK - Score 4-6: MEDIUM RISK - Score 1-3: LOW RISK

  1. Plain English explanation: What this clause actually means in everyday language
  2. Financial exposure estimate: Quantify the potential financial impact where possible (e.g., "Could expose you to unlimited liability for third-party IP claims" or "Penalty of $X per day for late delivery with no cap")
  3. Specific alternative language: Write actual replacement clause text that would be more balanced

Step 5: Generate the Output

Write a file called RISK-ANALYSIS.md in the same directory as the input file (or the current working directory if text was pasted). The file must follow this structure:

# Contract Risk Analysis

> **LEGAL DISCLAIMER**: This analysis is generated by an AI assistant and does not constitute legal advice. It is intended for informational and educational purposes only. No attorney-client relationship is created by using this tool. Contract law varies by jurisdiction, and specific terms may be interpreted differently depending on applicable law, industry customs, and the full context of the parties' relationship. Always consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction before making legal decisions or signing contracts.

## Document Summary

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| **Contract Type** | [type] |
| **Parties** | [Party A] and [Party B] |
| **Effective Date** | [date] |
| **Governing Law** | [jurisdiction] |
| **Analysis Date** | [today] |

## Overall Risk Score: [X]/10

[1-2 sentence summary of the overall risk posture]

## Risk Matrix

| # | Clause/Section | Risk Category | Score | Indicator | Financial Exposure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [Section name] | [category] | [X]/10 | [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW RISK] | [estimate] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

## Total Estimated Financial Exposure

[Aggregate the financial exposure estimates. Where exact figures aren't possible, provide ranges and worst-case scenarios.]

---

## Detailed Risk Analysis

### [Risk #1 - HIGH RISK] Section X.X: [Section Title]

**Risk Category**: [category]
**Risk Score**: [X]/10

**Contract Language**:
> "[exact quoted text from the contract]"

**Plain English Translation**:
[What this actually means in everyday language]

**Why This Is Risky**:
[Detailed explanation of the risk, including real-world scenarios where this could hurt you]

**Financial Exposure**:
[Quantified estimate of potential financial impact]

**Recommended Alternative Language**:
> "[specific replacement clause text]"

---

[Repeat for each risky clause]

---

## Hidden Risks Identified

### [Hidden Risk #1]
- **Location**: [where in the contract]
- **Mechanism**: [how the hidden risk works]
- **Impact**: [what could happen]
- **Recommendation**: [what to do about it]

---

## Top 5 Priorities: Fix These First

1. **[Most critical issue]** - [1 sentence why] - Section [X.X]
2. **[Second most critical]** - [1 sentence why] - Section [X.X]
3. **[Third]** - [1 sentence why] - Section [X.X]
4. **[Fourth]** - [1 sentence why] - Section [X.X]
5. **[Fifth]** - [1 sentence why] - Section [X.X]

---

## Risk Distribution Summary

- HIGH RISK clauses: [count]
- MEDIUM RISK clauses: [count]
- LOW RISK clauses: [count]
- Clean clauses: [count]

Important Guidelines

  • Be specific, not generic. Do not say "this could be problematic." Say exactly what could go wrong and how much it could cost.
  • Every alternative clause you write must be legally coherent and balanced for both parties.
  • If a clause is actually fine, say so. Do not inflate risks to seem thorough.
  • Always consider the contract from the perspective of the party who would be reviewing it (typically the party who did NOT draft it).
  • If the contract type is identifiable, benchmark its terms against industry standards for that type.

平台分布

Codex

35.73%
按下载量换算35

Claude

32.16%
按下载量换算32

Cursor

18.77%
按下载量换算18

Gemini CLI

8.92%
按下载量换算9

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

可疑

权限和风险

可写文件

该 Skill 可能写入或修改本地文件,使用前需要确认目标目录和修改范围。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。来源安全扫描存在提醒或未通过项,安装前请自行复核。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills