Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 待分类

nda-review(保密协议审查)

nda-review 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。

nda-review 是待分类类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为只读;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在待分类类的 11,209 个 Skill 里排第 6,526。

总安装 445周安装 18GitHub Stars 103下载 140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:nda-review(保密协议审查)
来源仓库:https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills
仓库路径:skills/nda-review
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill nda-review
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/borghei/claude-skills --skill nda-review

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。

nda-review 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 中围绕仓库状态、代码变更或协作事项进行整理。通过 npx skills add 命令从指定 GitHub 仓库安装,需确认权限和维护状态。

使用前建议核实是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写操作。可结合原始 README 进一步核验具体用法和功能边界。

来源仓库内路径:skills/nda-review

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/borghei/claude-skills --skill nda-review;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

    它标注为只读,先用只读任务试一次,确认行为符合预期再扩大使用范围。

常见问题

6 条

nda-review 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill nda-review。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

nda-review 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。

nda-review 需要什么权限?

权限级别是只读。该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

nda-review 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。

nda-review 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 445 次,近一周安装 18 次,下载 140 次,GitHub 103 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。

nda-review 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

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。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。
  • 标注为只读权限,试用阶段不容易误改本地文件。

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。
  • 只想先试试效果、不希望它改动本地文件的人。

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
nda-review

保密协议审查 · 本页

445103只读未明确通过

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

⚠️ EXPERIMENTAL — This skill is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It does NOT constitute legal advice. All responsibility for usage rests with the user. Consult qualified legal professionals before acting on any output.

NDA Review

Deep clause-by-clause NDA review tool that analyzes agreements from Recipient or Discloser perspective. Produces structured issue logs with preferred redlines, fallback positions, rationale, owners, and deadlines.


Table of Contents

- NDA Clause Reviewer

- Full NDA Review - Perspective-Based Review


Tools

NDA Clause Reviewer

Performs deep analysis of NDA text, extracting and classifying each clause against best practices. Detects overbroad definitions, missing carveouts, problematic residuals, IP grants, indemnification, and audit rights.

# Review from recipient perspective (default)
python scripts/nda_clause_reviewer.py nda_draft.txt

# Review from discloser perspective
python scripts/nda_clause_reviewer.py nda_draft.txt --perspective discloser

# JSON output for integration
python scripts/nda_clause_reviewer.py nda_draft.txt --json

# Save issue log
python scripts/nda_clause_reviewer.py nda_draft.txt --output issues.json --json

What it produces:

  • Clause-by-clause issue log with H/M/L risk ratings
  • Preferred redline for each issue
  • Fallback position if preferred is rejected
  • Rationale for each recommendation
  • Owner assignment (legal, business, executive)
  • Deadline category (pre-signing, 30-day, 90-day)

Reference Guides

NDA Clause Reference

references/nda_clause_reference.md

Five deep reference modules:

  • Duration & Scope (term, survival, scope limitations)
  • Key Clauses (definition, purpose, permitted use, marking)
  • Party Obligations (standard of care, use restriction, disclosure limits)
  • Remedies & Liability (injunctive relief, damages, indemnification)
  • Standard Exceptions (public knowledge, prior possession, independent development, third-party receipt, legal compulsion)

NDA Review Templates

references/nda_review_templates.md

Output templates and worked examples:

  • Executive Summary format
  • Clause-by-clause Issue Log table format
  • Ownership and timing defaults by topic category
  • Worked examples for social media endorsement and group licensing scenarios

Workflows

Full NDA Review

  1. Triage first -- Run nda-triage skill for quick GREEN/YELLOW/RED classification
  2. Deep review -- Run nda_clause_reviewer.py with appropriate --perspective
  3. Review issue log -- Address HIGH-risk items first, then MEDIUM, then LOW
  4. Prepare redlines -- Use preferred positions; prepare fallbacks
  5. Assign owners -- Legal owns clause language; business owns commercial terms
  6. Set deadlines -- Pre-signing items before next meeting; post-signing items within 30-90 days
  7. Negotiate -- Present redlines; use fallbacks as needed
  8. Final review -- Verify all issues resolved before execution

Perspective-Based Review

PerspectiveFocus AreasKey Concerns
RecipientScope of obligations, carveouts, residuals, return/destructionProtecting freedom to operate; avoiding contamination claims
DiscloserDefinition breadth, remedies, duration, permitted disclosuresMaximizing protection; ensuring adequate enforcement

Immediate Red Flags

Stop review and escalate if any of these 7 red flags are present.

#Red FlagWhy It MattersEscalation
1Non-compete clauseRestricts business operations; requires separate consideration and analysisSenior counsel immediately
2IP assignment or license grantTransfers rights beyond confidentiality scopeSenior counsel immediately
3Non-solicitation of employees or customersEmployment law implications; may be unenforceableSenior counsel within 24 hours
4Missing 3+ standard carveoutsFundamentally deficient NDACounsel review before any response
5Liquidated damages or penalty clauseTransforms NDA into penalty contractSenior counsel within 24 hours
6Perpetual obligations with no terminationIndefinite legal burden with no exitCounsel review within 48 hours
7Exclusivity provisionLimits engagement with other partiesBusiness leadership + counsel

Review Checklists

Recipient Checklist (8 Topics)

#TopicKey QuestionsRisk if Missing
1Definition ScopeIs confidential info bounded? Is there a marking requirement?Overbroad definition traps all shared information
2Standard CarveoutsAre all 5 carveouts present and properly drafted?Missing carveouts restrict legitimate business activities
3Permitted UseIs use restricted to stated purpose? Can we share with advisors?Overly restrictive use limits may impede evaluation
4ResidualsIs there a residuals clause? Is it narrow or broad?Broad residuals clause benefits; narrow or absent protects discloser
5Return/DestructionReturn or destroy option? Retention exception for backups?No retention exception is impractical for electronic data
6Term & SurvivalReasonable term? Reasonable survival period? Termination right?Perpetual obligations are burdensome
7RemediesInjunctive relief only? Or liquidated damages/indemnification?Excessive remedies shift risk disproportionately
8Problematic ProvisionsNon-compete? Non-solicitation? IP assignment? Audit rights?These provisions have no place in a standard NDA

Discloser Checklist (5 Topics)

#TopicKey QuestionsRisk if Missing
1Definition BreadthDoes definition cover all information we will share? All forms?Gaps in definition leave information unprotected
2Obligation StrengthStandard of care adequate? Written agreements from recipients?Weak obligations increase risk of unauthorized disclosure
3RemediesInjunctive relief available? Is it meaningful in this jurisdiction?Without adequate remedies, NDA is unenforceable in practice
4DurationIs the term long enough? Does survival cover our exposure window?Short terms may expire before information loses value
5Recipient LimitsWho can receive? Is need-to-know enforced? Downstream binding?Unrestricted sharing exposes information to unauthorized parties

Variation Callouts

Different NDA contexts require different review emphasis.

M&A Context

Additional ConcernReasonRecommended Position
Standstill provisionPrevents hostile acquisition moves during due diligenceAccept if mutual and time-limited (12-18 months)
Non-solicitation of employeesStandard in M&A NDAsAccept if limited to key employees for 12 months
Broader definitionM&A requires extensive information sharingAccept broader definition with strong carveouts
Longer survivalSensitive strategic information shared3-5 year survival is appropriate
Residuals clause sensitivityCompetitive intelligence at stakeResist residuals clause or narrow significantly

Employment Context

Additional ConcernReasonRecommended Position
Invention assignmentEmployer IP ownershipSeparate from NDA; use invention assignment agreement
Post-employment obligationsObligations after employment endsLimit survival to 2 years; ensure enforceability
Scope of work productWhat the employee createsDefine in employment agreement, not NDA
Non-compete enforceabilityVaries by jurisdictionReview local law before including; may be void

VC / Fundraising Context

Additional ConcernReasonRecommended Position
Investor portfolio conflictsVC may have portfolio companies in same spaceInclude portfolio company exclusion or conflict provision
Residuals clauseVCs see many similar pitchesResist; protect trade secrets and specific data
Term limitationsVCs want short obligations2-3 year term acceptable; ensure adequate survival
Definition scopeFounders want maximum protectionBalance with investor need for portfolio flexibility

Risk Rating Guide

RatingCriteriaActionTimeline
HIGH (H)Could result in material legal or financial exposure; deal-breaker potentialMust resolve before signingPre-signing
MEDIUM (M)Creates meaningful risk but manageable; strong preference to resolveShould resolve; accept with documented risk if necessaryWithin 30 days
LOW (L)Minor preference; improves agreement but not materialNice to resolve; concede if needed for higher-priority winsWithin 90 days

Risk Rating by Issue Type

Issue TypeTypical RatingEscalation
Missing carveout (any)M-HCounsel
Overbroad definitionMCounsel
Non-compete/non-solicitationHSenior counsel
IP assignmentHSenior counsel
Residuals clause (broad)MCounsel
Perpetual obligationsM-HCounsel
No return/destructionMCounsel
Liquidated damagesHSenior counsel
Missing governing lawL-MCounsel
One-sided obligationsMCounsel

Common Pitfalls

PitfallImpactFix
Reviewing without knowing your perspectiveRecipient and discloser have opposing interests on many clausesAlways set --perspective flag; review with clear role in mind
Treating the NDA as "just a formality"Missing problematic provisions that create real obligationsRun full clause review on every NDA, regardless of perceived importance
Negotiating clause-by-clause in document orderWastes time on early low-priority clauses; may not reach critical issuesPrioritize by risk rating; address H items first
Accepting "standard" NDAs without reviewEvery organization's "standard" is different; one party's standard favors that partyNo NDA is truly standard; always review
Ignoring context (M&A, employment, VC)Standard NDA review misses context-specific risksUse variation callouts for specialized contexts
Not preparing fallback positionsStuck when counterparty rejects preferred redlinePrepare preferred + fallback for every H and M item
Signing before resolving H-rated issuesCreates material legal exposureRequire all H items resolved or executive sign-off

Troubleshooting

ProblemCauseSolution
All issues rated LOWNDA is genuinely well-drafted, or text extraction lost key sectionsManually verify critical sections (definition, carveouts, remedies) are in the input file
Perspective flag has no effectTool adjusts weighting, not detection; same issues found either wayPerspective changes risk ratings and recommendations, not issue detection
Too many issues generatedNDA is non-standard or poorly draftedFocus on H-rated issues first; use the issue log as a negotiation roadmap
Script misses embedded provisionsNon-compete or IP clause hidden in definitions or general provisionsSearch full document for "compete", "assign", "license", "solicit" manually
Output format does not match templateTool outputs structured data, not final deliverableUse references/nda_review_templates.md to format the output for stakeholders

Success Criteria

  • Complete clause-by-clause review in under 15 minutes: Automated analysis replaces 1-2 hours of manual review.
  • Zero missed HIGH-risk issues: Every non-compete, IP assignment, and missing carveout is identified.
  • Actionable redlines for every H and M issue: Each issue has preferred position, fallback, and rationale.
  • Clear ownership assignment: Every issue has a designated owner (legal, business, executive).
  • Perspective-appropriate recommendations: Recipient and discloser reviews produce different risk weightings.
  • Context-aware review: M&A, employment, and VC variations are flagged when relevant.

Scope & Limitations

Covers:

  • Deep clause-by-clause NDA analysis with pattern matching and risk classification
  • Perspective-based review (Recipient vs. Discloser)
  • Issue log generation with redlines, fallbacks, rationale, owners, and deadlines
  • Detection of 7 immediate red flags for triage
  • Context variation awareness (M&A, Employment, VC)

Does NOT cover:

  • Legal advice -- this tool supports review, it does not replace qualified legal counsel
  • Rapid triage -- use nda-triage for quick GREEN/YELLOW/RED screening
  • Contract types beyond NDAs -- use contract-review for general commercial agreements
  • Jurisdiction-specific enforceability analysis -- requires local counsel assessment
  • Non-English NDAs -- pattern matching is English-language only

Anti-Patterns

Anti-PatternWhy It FailsBetter Approach
Running deep review without triage firstWastes time on detailed analysis of NDAs that should be rejected outright (RED triage)Always run nda-triage first; only proceed to deep review for YELLOW or GREEN-with-complexity
Using Recipient perspective for both sidesRecipient perspective minimizes obligations and maximizes carveouts, which is wrong if you are the discloserAlways set the correct --perspective flag based on your role
Accepting all LOW-rated issues without reviewSome LOW issues are low-risk individually but create cumulative exposure when combinedReview the full issue log for interaction effects; multiple LOW issues in the same area may compound to MEDIUM
Skipping the variation callouts for specialized contextsStandard NDA review misses M&A standstill provisions, employment invention assignment, VC portfolio conflictsCheck the variation callouts section for your specific deal context

Tool Reference

nda_clause_reviewer.py

Purpose: Performs deep clause-by-clause NDA analysis. Detects overbroad definitions, missing carveouts, problematic provisions, and generates an issue log with redlines, fallbacks, rationale, owners, and deadlines.

Usage:

python scripts/nda_clause_reviewer.py <nda_file> [--perspective PERSPECTIVE] [--json] [--output FILE]

Flags:

FlagShortDefaultDescription
nda_file*(positional)*Path to NDA text file (.txt or.md)
--perspective-precipientReview perspective: recipient or discloser
--jsonoffOutput in JSON format
--output-o*(stdout)*Write output to file

Example Output (JSON):

{
  "file": "vendor_nda.txt",
  "perspective": "recipient",
  "issues": [
    {
      "id": 1,
      "clause": "Definition of Confidential Information",
      "issue": "Overbroad definition with no marking requirement",
      "risk": "H",
      "preferred_redline": "Narrow to information marked Confidential or confirmed in writing within 10 days",
      "fallback": "Add marking requirement for written; 10-day confirmation for oral",
      "rationale": "Overbroad definition traps all shared information as confidential",
      "owner": "legal",
      "deadline": "pre-signing"
    }
  ],
  "summary": {
    "total_issues": 5,
    "high": 2,
    "medium": 2,
    "low": 1
  }
}

Example Output (Text):

NDA CLAUSE REVIEW — ISSUE LOG
==============================
File: vendor_nda.txt
Perspective: Recipient
Issues Found: 5 (H:2 M:2 L:1)

 #  Risk  Clause                           Issue
 1  H     Definition of Confidential Info  Overbroad definition; no marking requirement
        Preferred: Narrow to marked information with 10-day oral confirmation
        Fallback:  Add marking requirement for written; 10-day confirmation for oral
        Rationale: Overbroad definition traps all shared information
        Owner: legal | Deadline: pre-signing

 2  H     Standard Carveouts               Missing independent development carveout
        Preferred: Add standard independent development exception
        Fallback:  Add with documentary evidence requirement
        Rationale: Missing carveout blocks internal R&D
        Owner: legal | Deadline: pre-signing

平台分布

Codex

34.81%
按下载量换算49

Claude

31.16%
按下载量换算44

Cursor

20.17%
按下载量换算28

Gemini CLI

8.28%
按下载量换算12

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

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。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