Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 开发

contract-review(合同审查)

contract-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。

contract-review 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,第三方扫描有提醒项,按安装量在开发类的 21,744 个 Skill 里排第 14,163。

总安装 744周安装 31GitHub Stars 114下载 248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:contract-review(合同审查)
来源仓库:https://github.com/shawnpang/startup-founder-skills
仓库路径:skills/contract-review
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/shawnpang/startup-founder-skills --skill contract-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/shawnpang/startup-founder-skills --skill contract-review

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。

Contract-review 提供合同风险分析与谈判建议,覆盖创业法律场景。采用红黄绿标记系统识别高风险条款与优先行动项。

通过 GitHub 安装,命令为 npx skills add https://github.com/shawnpang/startup-founder-skills --skill contract-review。需人工复核输出结果是否符合具体业务上下文。建议结合法律顾问意见进行最终决策。

来源仓库内路径:skills/contract-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/shawnpang/startup-founder-skills --skill contr…;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

contract-review 怎么安装?

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

contract-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。

contract-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。

contract-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。

contract-review 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 744 次,近一周安装 31 次,下载 248 次,GitHub 114 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。

contract-review 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。
  • 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
contract-review

合同审查 · 本页

744114只读未明确有提醒

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

Contract Review

When to Use

Activate when a founder has received a contract to sign and wants to understand the risks before proceeding. This includes vendor agreements, customer enterprise agreements, partnership deals, investment documents, employment agreements, NDAs, IP assignment agreements, and any other binding legal document. Also activate when the user says things like "review this contract," "is this agreement fair," "what should I push back on," or "flag anything concerning."

Context Required

  • From startup-context: company stage, team size, business model, fundraising status, current revenue, and any existing legal counsel.
  • From the user: the contract text (or key sections), who the counterparty is, the business relationship context (are they a customer, vendor, investor, partner), the user's negotiating leverage, and any specific concerns they have. Also helpful: whether this is a template/standard agreement or has been negotiated.

Workflow

  1. Contract intake — Receive the contract text. Identify the contract type, parties, effective date, and term. Create a one-paragraph summary of what the contract does.
  2. Section-by-section analysis — Walk through each major section, summarizing what it means in plain language and flagging anything noteworthy.
  3. Risk flagging — Apply the red/yellow/green flagging system (see below) to each clause. Assign a severity and explain why.
  4. Missing protections — Identify standard protections that are absent from the contract but should be present given the contract type and relationship.
  5. Negotiation recommendations — For each red and yellow flag, suggest specific alternative language or a negotiation strategy.
  6. Summary report — Produce a structured risk assessment with prioritized action items.

Output Format

Contract Summary (top of report)

  • Contract type: (e.g., SaaS vendor agreement, MSA, NDA)
  • Parties: Company name vs. counterparty name
  • Term: Duration, renewal mechanism
  • Total value: Financial commitment if applicable
  • Overall risk level: Red / Yellow / Green with one-sentence rationale

Clause-by-Clause Analysis Table

SectionSummaryFlagRiskRecommended Action
Liability CapCapped at fees paid in prior 6 monthsYellowLow cap for potential damagesNegotiate to 12-month cap
IP AssignmentBroad assignment of all work productRedCould capture pre-existing IPAdd carve-out for pre-existing IP

Missing Protections Checklist

Bulleted list of protections that should be present but are not.

Prioritized Action Items

Numbered list of what to do, in order of importance.

Frameworks & Best Practices

The Red/Yellow/Green Flagging System

Red Flags — Immediate concern, do not sign without modification:

  • Unlimited liability or liability cap below a reasonable threshold
  • Broad IP assignment that could capture pre-existing IP or IP unrelated to the engagement
  • Non-compete clauses that are overly broad in scope, geography, or duration
  • Unilateral termination rights without cure period for one party only
  • Automatic renewal with no opt-out window or unreasonable notice requirements
  • Indemnification obligations that are uncapped or wildly asymmetric
  • Most-favored-nation clauses that constrain your pricing with other customers
  • Exclusivity provisions that limit your ability to work with competitors
  • Audit rights with unreasonable scope or no notice requirement
  • Governing law in an unfavorable or distant jurisdiction with no negotiation

Yellow Flags — Worth negotiating, but not necessarily deal-breakers:

  • Liability caps that are low relative to the contract value
  • Warranty periods or SLA credits that are below industry standard
  • Payment terms exceeding net-60
  • Change-of-control provisions that allow termination on acquisition
  • Broad confidentiality definitions with long or indefinite survival periods
  • Assignment restrictions that prevent assignment in an acquisition scenario
  • Force majeure clauses that are overly broad or favor one party
  • Data handling terms that are vague about deletion, portability, or sub-processors

Green Flags — Standard and reasonable:

  • Mutual confidentiality obligations
  • Balanced termination rights with cure periods
  • Liability capped at 12 months of fees paid
  • Standard representations and warranties
  • Clear payment terms (net-30)
  • Reasonable non-solicitation (employees only, 12 months)

Negotiation Principles

  • Symmetry first. Any obligation imposed on one party should apply to both unless there is a clear business reason for asymmetry.
  • Cap everything. Liability, indemnification, and damages should all have explicit caps.
  • Cure periods. Both parties should have the opportunity to fix a breach before termination.
  • Specificity over breadth. Narrow definitions protect both parties. "Confidential Information means everything" protects nothing.
  • Survival clarity. Specify exactly which clauses survive termination and for how long.

Related Skills

  • terms-of-service — When reviewing a customer's redlines to your terms of service, use contract-review to assess their proposed modifications.
  • privacy-policy — Data processing addendums and DPAs often accompany contracts. Review these for consistency with your privacy commitments.

Examples

Example 1: Reviewing a vendor SaaS agreement

User: "We're about to sign a contract with a data enrichment vendor. Here are the terms. Can you flag anything concerning?"

Good output excerpt:

Overall Risk Level: Yellow The agreement is mostly standard but has three issues worth negotiating before signing. | Section | Flag | Issue | | --- | --- | --- | | 4.2 Data Rights | Red | Vendor claims a "perpetual, irrevocable license to use Customer Data for product improvement and benchmarking." This means they keep and use your data forever, even after termination. Negotiate to: license limited to providing the service, terminates on contract end, anonymization required for any aggregate use. | | 7.1 Liability | Yellow | Cap is set at "fees paid in the prior 3 months." For a $2K/month contract, that is a $6K cap. If they cause a data breach affecting your customers, your exposure could be much higher. Negotiate to: 12 months of fees, with a carve-out for uncapped liability on data breaches and IP infringement. | | 9.3 Termination | Yellow | 90-day notice required to cancel, even on annual renewal. Combined with auto-renewal, this means you need to decide 3 months before your renewal date. Negotiate to: 30-day notice, or set a calendar reminder now. | Missing Protections: - No data deletion timeline after termination - No breach notification obligation - No sub-processor list or approval rights - No SLA or uptime commitment

Example 2: Reviewing an IP assignment in an employment agreement

User: "A new engineer's offer letter has an IP assignment clause. They're concerned about their open-source side projects. Can you review?"

Good output excerpt:

Section 8 — Invention Assignment: Red Flag The current language reads: *"Employee assigns to the Company all right, title, and interest in any invention, improvement, or work of authorship created during the term of employment."* This is overly broad. It captures the engineer's weekend open-source contributions, personal projects, and anything they create during employment regardless of whether it relates to company business. Recommended revision: Add a carve-out: *"...created during the term of employment that (a) relates to the Company's current or reasonably anticipated business, (b) was developed using Company resources, or (c) resulted from work performed for the Company."* Also add a Schedule A listing the engineer's pre-existing IP and active side projects, explicitly excluded from assignment. Note: California Labor Code Section 2870 already provides some protection, but an explicit carve-out is clearer and avoids disputes.

Disclaimer: This skill provides contract analysis for educational and planning purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. Contract interpretation depends on jurisdiction-specific law, the full context of the business relationship, and facts that may not be apparent from the document alone. Always have a qualified attorney review contracts before signing, especially those involving significant financial commitments, IP rights, or liability exposure.

平台分布

Codex

36.14%
按下载量换算90

Claude

30.74%
按下载量换算76

Cursor

16.96%
按下载量换算42

Gemini CLI

8.95%
按下载量换算22

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

可疑

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。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