Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 开发

nda-review-jamie-tso(NDA 审查 Jamie Tso)

nda-review-jamie-tso 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-jamie-tso 是开发类 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,按安装量在开发类的 21,746 个 Skill 里排第 13,228。

总安装 970周安装 40GitHub Stars 302下载 317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-jamie-tso(NDA 审查 Jamie Tso)
来源仓库:https://github.com/lawvable/awesome-legal-skills
仓库路径:skills/nda-review-jamie-tso
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/lawvable/awesome-legal-skills --skill nda-review-jamie-tso
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/lawvable/awesome-legal-skills --skill nda-review-jamie-tso

这个 Skill 是做什么的

开发类 Skill 面向写代码、改代码和排查问题,一般会读写仓库文件,部分还会执行构建或测试命令。

nda-review-jamie-tso 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-jamie-tso

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/lawvable/awesome-legal-skills --skill nda-revi…;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-jamie-tso 怎么安装?

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

nda-review-jamie-tso 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-jamie-tso 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-jamie-tso 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-jamie-tso 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 970 次,近一周安装 40 次,下载 317 次,GitHub 302 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-jamie-tso 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。
  • 需要处理开发类任务、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。

开发类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
skill-vetter

技能审查员 · OpenClaw

8,779,018986操作浏览器MIT-0通过
ontology

本体论 · OpenClaw

6,636,960576只读MIT-0通过
entra-app-registration

内部应用程序注册 · Codex、Claude

6,631,872764接触敏感数据未明确通过
entra-app-registration

内部应用程序注册 · Codex、Claude

3,757,680201接触敏感数据未明确通过
nano-banana-pro

纳米香蕉专业版 · OpenClaw

3,526,898364接触敏感数据MIT-0有提醒
nda-review-jamie-tso

NDA 审查 Jamie Tso · 本页

970302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

NDA Review Playbook (Commercial, Jurisdiction-Agnostic)

Overview

What this skill doesWhat it does not do
Reviews an NDA and outputs issues, risks, and suggested redlinesProvide jurisdiction-specific legal conclusions
Supports *Recipient* or *Discloser* perspectives (user-chosen)Guarantee enforceability
Produces an executive summary + clause-by-clause markup guidanceReplace counsel for complex deals

Scope limitation (important): this playbook supports one-way (unilateral) commercial NDAs only.

If the NDA is mutual, stop: this playbook is out of scope and you should escalate to counsel or use a separate mutual-NDA review approach.

Variation callouts appear throughout: - M&A / Due diligence - Employment / contractor - Investor / VC

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. This skill is provided for informational and educational purposes only. Laws vary by jurisdiction and individual circumstances, and only a licensed attorney can provide advice tailored to your specific situation. When the NDA is high-risk, high-value, cross-border, or otherwise sensitive, escalate to qualified counsel.

Remember: All outputs from this skill must be reviewed by a qualified legal professional before being used for any legal purposes.


Inputs to collect (ask before reviewing)

A. Role and deal context (required)

  • Are we reviewing as Recipient (we receive confidential info) or Discloser (we disclose confidential info)?
  • Confirm the NDA is one-way (unilateral). If it is mutual, stop: this playbook cannot be used.
  • What is the purpose / permitted use (e.g., evaluation of partnership, vendor RFP, diligence)?
  • What are the parties (legal names) and any affiliates that should be covered?
  • What information types are expected (tech, pricing, customer data, product roadmap, source code)?
  • Desired timeline: when do we need to sign?

B. Practical constraints (recommended)

  • Do we need to share with affiliates, advisors, contractors, auditors, or potential acquirers?
  • Will we need to export data across borders or store in cloud tools?
  • Will any personal data be shared? If yes, are there separate data-processing terms?
Jurisdiction-agnostic note: avoid asserting “this clause is invalid” without the governing law details; focus on *commercial risk*, *operational feasibility*, and *market norms*.

Deliverables (output format)

Quick start (default output template)

ALWAYS output:

  1. Executive summary
  2. Clause-by-clause issue log (single table)

A. Executive summary (1 page)

  • Party role (Recipient or Discloser) and confirmation it is one-way (unilateral)
  • Top 5 negotiation points (ranked)
  • “Sign as-is” / “Sign with changes” / “Escalate” recommendation

B. Clause-by-clause issue log (lawyer-style, thorough)

Use a single table so counsel and business owners can track issues, owners, and deadlines.

ClauseIssue (1 line)Risk (H/M/L)Preferred redlineFallbackRationale (1–2 sentences)OwnerDeadline
DefinitionOverbroad; includes unmarked info with no reasonableness
Term & survivalPerpetual confidentiality for all information
Use restrictionPurpose too broad; blocks internal evaluation
DisclosuresRepresentatives undefined; strict liability
Return/destructionNo backup carve-out
RemediesOne-way fees + automatic injunction
LiabilityIndemnity + unlimited consequential damages
BoilerplateAssignment prohibits change of control

Example (compact)

Executive summary (example skeleton):

  • Role: Recipient (one-way NDA)
  • Recommendation: Sign with changes
  • Top 5 points: definition scope; term/survival; representatives; backup carve-out; remedies/fees

Issue log (example rows):

ClauseIssue (1 line)Risk (H/M/L)Preferred redlineFallbackRationale (1–2 sentences)OwnerDeadline
Term & survivalPerpetual confidentiality for all informationHAdd 2–5 year survival; trade secret carve-out only5-year survival for allReduces indefinite operational burden while protecting truly sensitive infoLegalBefore signature
Return/destructionNo backup carve-outMAdd backup/legal hold exception + continued confidentialityAllow retention in immutable backups onlyRequired for standard IT operations; avoids impossible complianceSecurity + LegalBefore signature

5-step workflow

Step 1 — Identify stance (Recipient vs Discloser)

  • Confirm which side we are on for *this specific NDA* (titles are often misleading).
  • Confirm the NDA is one-way (unilateral). If it is mutual, stop (out of scope).

Quick heuristic:

  • If we are being asked to keep their info secret → we are Recipient.
  • If we are sharing our sensitive info → we are Discloser (if the NDA is mutual, stop: out of scope).

Step 2 — Triage the NDA (fast risk scan)

Flag these immediately:

  • Perpetual confidentiality for *all* information (no trade secret distinction)
  • Residuals clause allowing use of “memory” or generalized knowledge
  • Injunctive relief + attorneys’ fees one-way against Recipient
  • Indemnity for breach or broad third-party claims
  • No carve-outs for compelled disclosure or prior knowledge
  • Overbroad definition: “all information, whether marked or not” with no reasonableness
  • Affiliate coverage missing when we must share internally
If any are present and the NDA matters, proceed with full review and consider escalation.

Step 3 — Clause-by-clause review (use the reference modules)

Use these references while reviewing:

Step 4 — Draft redlines and negotiation positions

For each issue, produce:

  • Preferred redline (best risk outcome)
  • Fallback position (acceptable compromise)
  • Rationale (1–2 sentences: business + operational feasibility)
  • Owner (who needs to approve / negotiate: Legal, Sales, Security, Product)
  • Deadline (by when the counterparty needs the change)

Negotiation discipline: do not propose 20 changes. Focus on the 5–10 that materially change risk.

Step 5 — Finalize the package

  • Ensure consistency (definitions used the same way everywhere)
  • Confirm operational feasibility (can we actually comply?)
  • Re-scan the Step 2 triage list and ensure each flagged item is represented in the issue log
  • Provide a short “what we changed and why” summary

Perspective-specific checklists

A. Recipient checklist (incoming NDA — typical case)

TopicRed flagsTypical ask
Definition of Confidential InformationOverbroad; includes independently developed info; no marking/identification standardAdd reasonableness + identification standard; add exclusions
Purpose / Permitted UseAny use restriction beyond evaluation; bans on internal sharingTie to stated purpose; allow internal need-to-know
RepresentativesWe are liable for any representative breach without controlLimit to those under written confidentiality; commercially reasonable care
Term & survivalPerpetual for everything; unclear start dateFixed term; longer only for trade secrets
Return / destructionRequires deletion of backups immediatelyAdd practical backup carve-out
RemediesOne-way fees + broad injunction languageMutuality or reasonableness; clarify equitable relief scope
Liability / indemnityIndemnity; unlimited damages; consequential damagesCap or exclude categories; remove indemnity
ResidualsAllows use of “retained in memory”Delete or narrow heavily
M&A / Due diligence: ensure diligence sharing (advisors, financing, affiliates) is permitted and that data room exports/notes are covered.

B. Discloser checklist (when we are sharing sensitive info)

TopicRed flagsTypical ask
DefinitionToo narrow; requires marking only; excludes oral disclosuresAdd oral confirmation mechanism; broaden categories reasonably
Security standardOnly “reasonable” with no baselineAdd minimum safeguards, or align with internal policy
ExclusionsToo broad (e.g., “independently developed” with no proof)Require written evidence of prior knowledge/independent development
Term & survivalToo shortExtend for sensitive categories; trade secret survival
RemediesNo equitable relief, no feesAdd equitable relief and/or fees (carefully)
Investor / VC: watch for standstill, solicitation, and “no contact” provisions—these are not standard in plain NDAs and may need separate agreement.

Risk rating guide

RatingMeaningExample
HighCreates material, uncapped, or operationally impossible riskBroad indemnity + unlimited damages for any breach
MediumRisk is real but manageable with process controlsStrict notice deadlines for compelled disclosure
LowMostly cosmetic or market-standardMinor notice method issues

Common pitfalls (issue → risk → fix)

IssueRiskSuggested fix
“All information is confidential forever”Operational burden; unfair risk allocationAdd fixed term + trade secret carve-out
No compelled disclosure carve-outBreach if subpoenaedAdd “required by law” disclosure path
Return/destruction requires purge of backupsImpossible to complyAdd backup and system integrity exception
Recipient indemnifies discloserOpen-ended exposureRemove indemnity; use direct damages only
Residuals clauseAllows de facto use of confidential infoDelete or restrict to non-trade-secret, non-source-code

Review prompts (copy/paste)

A. Minimal prompt (fast)

  • Role: Recipient/Discloser
  • NDA type: one-way (unilateral)
  • Purpose: …
  • Please produce (1) exec summary, (2) clause-by-clause issue log table with: Clause, Issue, Risk, Preferred redline, Fallback, Rationale, Owner, Deadline, (3) top 5 negotiation points.

B. Deep prompt (recommended)

  • Add constraints: affiliates, advisors, contractors, cross-border sharing, personal data, cloud tools.
  • Ask for: preferred redline + fallback + rationale per issue.

Ownership & timing defaults (if the user does not specify)

Use these defaults to populate Owner and Deadline in the issue log:

TopicDefault ownerDefault deadline
Confidentiality scope/definition, exceptions, term/survivalLegalBefore signature
Security standards / audit rightsSecurity + LegalBefore signature
Return/destruction and backupsSecurity + IT + LegalBefore signature
Liability cap / damages / indemnity / feesLegal + FinanceBefore signature
Operational constraints (representatives, affiliates, tooling)Legal + Business ownerBefore signature

平台分布

Codex

38%
按下载量换算120

Claude

28.78%
按下载量换算91

Cursor

19.98%
按下载量换算63

Gemini CLI

9.06%
按下载量换算29

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