Claude-Skills nda-review

install
source · Clone the upstream repo
git clone https://github.com/borghei/Claude-Skills
Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/borghei/Claude-Skills "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/legal/nda-review" ~/.claude/skills/borghei-claude-skills-nda-review && rm -rf "$T"
manifest: legal/nda-review/SKILL.md
source content

⚠️ 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


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
-p
recipient
Review perspective:
recipient
or
discloser
--json
offOutput 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