Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Review a vendor/SaaS contract against a practical checklist before you sign. Use when asked to review a vendor contract, check a SaaS/MSA/subscription agreement, flag risky terms, or prepare negotiation points before signing. Produces a structured review — key terms extracted, a risk-flagged checklist (commercial, legal, security, exit), questions to ask, and prioritised negotiation points. Not legal advice.
.claude/skills/mohitagw15856-vendor-contract-checklist/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 2% | 0% |
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 17% | 0% |
| case-03 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 22% | 0% |
| case-10 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -15% | 0% |
| case-11 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -23% | 0% |
Most bad vendor deals are lost in the terms nobody read: auto-renewal, price escalators, weak SLAs, no exit, vague data rights. This skill reviews a contract against a practical checklist, extracts the terms that actually bite, flags the risks, and turns them into specific questions and negotiation points — so you sign with your eyes open.
> Note: this is a practical review aid, not legal advice. For material commitments, high spend, or > anything regulated, have it reviewed by qualified counsel. Flag, don't rule on, legal questions.
Given a contract (or a description of one), produce the full review anyway — extract what's present, and for standard terms that are missing or unstated, flag them as gaps to confirm rather than assuming they're fine. Never withhold the review for an incomplete document; mark what couldn't be assessed.
Ask for these only if they aren't already provided (else mark as "not found — confirm"):
1. Key terms at a glance — extracted: parties, term & renewal, total cost & escalators, payment terms, SLA, liability cap, termination, data/IP, governing law.
2. Risk-flagged checklist — by area, each marked ✅ ok / ⚠️ review / ❌ problem / ❓ not found:
| Area | Item | Status | Note | |---|---|---|---| | Commercial | auto-renewal & notice period | ⚠️ | 60-day notice, auto-renews 12 mo — calendar it | | Commercial | price increase cap | ❓ | not capped — negotiate a cap | | Legal | liability cap vs. fees | ⚠️ | capped at 3 months' fees — low for the risk | | Security/data | data deletion & portability on exit | ❌ | not addressed — add | | SLA | uptime + remedy (credits) | ⚠️ | 99.5%, credits only — check fit | | Exit | termination for convenience | ❓ | not present — request |
3. Questions to ask the vendor — the specific clarifications before signing.
4. Negotiation points — prioritised, with a suggested ask for each (what "good" looks like): the few terms worth pushing on, and the rationale.
5. Sign-off note — what's fine, what needs negotiation, and what to send to legal.
Procurement and vendor-risk practice — key-term extraction, risk-flagged review across commercial/legal/security/exit, and prioritised negotiation.
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-19 | pass→pass | 17,671 | 27,831 | +57% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,946 | 4,652 | +58% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-01 | fail→pass | 39,306 | 34,108 | -13% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,948 | 5,057 | +2% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | 34,714 | 32,900 | -5% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,201 | 4,912 | +17% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→pass | 33,753 | 23,238 | -31% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,002 | 4,880 | +22% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 32,974 | 35,356 | +7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,366 | 4,904 | +12% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 47,029 | 25,572 | -46% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 6,532 | 4,569 | -30% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 35,732 | 52,070 | +46% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,819 | 4,709 | -2% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | 37,794 | 26,428 | -30% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,600 | 4,653 | +1% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 25,589 | 21,676 | -15% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,154 | 3,778 | +20% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | pass→pass | 22,738 | 26,469 | +16% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,768 | 3,929 | +42% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | fail→pass | 29,704 | 20,834 | -30% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,964 | 3,377 | -15% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→pass | 48,281 | 26,780 | -45% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 5,860 | 4,511 | -23% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 25,739 | 23,059 | -10% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,434 | 4,673 | +36% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | fail→pass | 25,030 | 30,639 | +22% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,364 | 4,997 | +49% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 31,961 | 24,809 | -22% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,746 | 4,618 | -3% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 22,789 | 20,904 | -8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,663 | 3,758 | +41% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 35,658 | 27,922 | -22% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,391 | 4,811 | +10% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | 19,831 | 42,695 | +115% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,405 | 3,801 | +58% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 66,795 | 21,849 | -67% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 5,481 | 3,904 | -29% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 28,654 | 31,457 | +10% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,967 | 4,911 | +24% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 21,776 | 33,674 | +55% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,248 | 4,873 | +50% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 23,570 | 24,510 | +4% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,286 | 4,188 | +27% | 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. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +32 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
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.