Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →When the user needs to review an existing contract, assess risk in proposed terms, or evaluate a contract before signing.
.claude/skills/mkurman-contract-review/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 30% | 0% |
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 91% | 0% |
| case-05 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 47% | 0% |
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 54% | 0% |
| case-15 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 109% | 0% |
|---|---|---| | Liability Cap | Capped at fees paid in prior 6 months | Yellow | Low cap for potential damages | Negotiate to 12-month cap | | IP Assignment | Broad assignment of all work product | Red | Could capture pre-existing IP | Add carve-out for pre-existing IP |
Bulleted list of protections that should be present but are not.
Numbered list of what to do, in order of importance.
Red Flags — Immediate concern, do not sign without modification:
Yellow Flags — Worth negotiating, but not necessarily deal-breakers:
Green Flags — Standard and reasonable:
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.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
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.
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-06 | pass→pass | 13,918 | 13,329 | -4% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,211 | 3,432 | +55% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-01 | fail→pass | 22,031 | 20,128 | -9% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,454 | 4,506 | +30% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | 11,578 | 14,089 | +22% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,900 | 3,627 | +91% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | pass→pass | 13,205 | 11,804 | -11% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,177 | 3,317 | +52% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 12,237 | 14,934 | +22% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,069 | 3,816 | +84% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | fail→pass | 12,740 | 10,796 | -15% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,068 | 3,041 | +47% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 13,880 | 12,404 | -11% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,172 | 3,343 | +54% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 13,844 | 11,287 | -18% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,214 | 3,188 | +44% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | pass→pass | 7,415 | 5,524 | -26% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,170 | 2,221 | +90% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→fail | 11,778 | 9,042 | -23% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,912 | 2,684 | +40% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 15,255 | 12,527 | -18% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,461 | 3,369 | +37% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | 12,972 | 9,919 | -24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,947 | 2,898 | +49% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 12,802 | 8,916 | -30% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,107 | 2,706 | +28% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 13,857 | 11,272 | -19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,273 | 3,150 | +39% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | 8,175 | 8,718 | +7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,299 | 2,714 | +109% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | 8,139 | 6,931 | -15% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,251 | 2,446 | +96% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 9,262 | 8,131 | -12% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,485 | 2,616 | +76% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 10,963 | 11,689 | +7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,804 | 3,184 | +76% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | 14,369 | 17,025 | +18% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,452 | 4,141 | +69% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | fail→fail | 14,010 | 14,439 | +3% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,253 | 3,567 | +58% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 13,542 | 11,991 | -11% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,104 | 3,226 | +53% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | 22,101 | 20,883 | -6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,255 | 5,147 | +21% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-23 | fail→fail | 34,608 | 34,537 | -0% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 6,176 | 7,524 | +22% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-24 | pass→pass | 13,963 | 11,086 | -21% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,434 | 3,239 | +33% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 24 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +25 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 24 comparable cases. 1 case got worse with the skill loaded, and it is included in that figure.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.