Ready to supercharge your AI agents?

Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.

Contract Redliner · onewave-ai | DecimalAI

onewave-ai/contract-redliner

SkillScore61Maintained

Reads a contract and generates redline suggestions with replacement language. Identifies unfavorable terms, missing protections, ambiguous language, liability exposure, IP risks, termination traps, and auto-renewal gotchas. Produces a contract-review.md with clause-by-clause analysis, risk ratings, tracked changes format, and negotiation talking points. Use when the user wants redline markup, contract markup, or suggested contract edits.

legalby onewave-ai

Links this skill to your agents and keeps it current with the author’s updates.

Automatic

Legal & Contracts pack

1 · One-time — install the CLI (docs ↗)

pip install decimalai

2 · Get the skill — writes .claude/skills/onewave-ai-contract-redliner/SKILL.md

decimalai skills pull onewave-ai-contract-redliner --out .claude/skills/

No CLI? Get the same file — curl · raw file

curl -fsSL --create-dirs -o .claude/skills/onewave-ai-contract-redliner/SKILL.md https://app.decimal.ai/s/onewave-ai-contract-redliner/SKILL.md

Raw file: /s/onewave-ai-contract-redliner/SKILL.md ↗ · machine-readable summary at /s/onewave-ai-contract-redliner.json ↗

In productionGlobal

how this skill behaves on real traffic · last 30 days

No production data for this skill yet — usage numbers appear here once agents start running it.

Anonymized aggregate across every org using this skill — proof from real production use, not a demo.

Does this skill help? · Benchmark: with vs. withoutsign in to run this on your agents

23 test cases from the publisher’s eval.yaml · each run twice on gemini-3.6-flash — with the skill injected, then without · last run 5d ago

—+93% tokens0% turns61% of whole cases pass with skill (14/23)

Test case	Without → With	Effect	Δ tokens	Δ turns
case-08	✗→✓	▲ Improved	109%	0%
case-09	✗→✓	▲ Improved	117%	0%
case-10	✗→✓	▲ Improved	88%	0%
case-11	✗→✓	▲ Improved	117%	0%
case-15	✗→✓	▲ Improved	47%	0%

Showing 5 of 23 cases

SkillSafety

✓ 3 of 3 passed

Code scan15 of 15 checks clean

0 critical · 0 warning · 0 info — scanner v4 — 8/3/2026

live_secretremote_code_executionreverse_shelldata_exfiltrationssrf_metadataagent_snoopinganti_refusaldestructive_commandsobfuscated_unicodeunicode_homoglyphopaque_blobsuspicious_urltool_overreachtrigger_abuseprompt_injection_phrasing

IntentSafe

LLM judge · does the skill do what it claims

ContentClean

LLM judge · policy & harmful-content review

Source

Imported

onewave-ai / claude-skills

contract-redliner/SKILL.md

View on GitHub ↗

License MITImported 8/3/2026Version v1Bundled 4 files

Skill contents

references/

SKILL.md

Contract Redliner

Read a contract and produce a contract-review.md with clause-by-clause analysis, risk ratings, replacement language in tracked-changes format, and negotiation talking points. Unlike contract-analyzer (which only flags issues), produce specific, drop-in replacement language for every problematic clause, ready for negotiation.

references/risk-categories.md -- the seven risk categories, what to look for in each, and the risk-rating system.
references/redline-format.md -- per-issue redline entry format and tracked-changes conventions.
references/output-template.md -- the full contract-review.md structure to generate.
references/contract-types.md -- per-contract-type focus areas and worked examples.

Workflow

Ingest the contract. Accept pasted text, a file path (.txt, .md, .pdf, .docx), or a URL. Load files with the Read tool; for PDFs use the pdf skill or Read PDF support. Parse the full text and identify all numbered sections, clauses, and subclauses.

Identify type and parties. Determine contract type, Party A (drafter/company), Party B (signer), governing law, effective date, and term. Apply the matching focus area from references/contract-types.md.

Analyze every section. Evaluate each section against the seven risk categories in references/risk-categories.md. Assign each section a rating (CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / ACCEPTABLE). Mark fair sections as ACCEPTABLE with a brief note -- do not skip them.

Generate redlines. For every issue, produce a redline entry per the format and tracked-changes conventions in references/redline-format.md. Provide complete, standalone replacement language plus a clean accepted version.

Write contract-review.md. Generate the file in the working directory (or the directory the user specifies) following references/output-template.md exactly and in order.

Mandatory Rules

Open every output with this disclaimer verbatim:

> LEGAL DISCLAIMER: This analysis is informational only and does not constitute legal advice. Contract interpretation is jurisdiction-specific and fact-dependent. Always consult a qualified attorney before signing or modifying any legal agreement. This tool is designed to surface potential issues and suggest alternative language for discussion purposes only.

Never provide incomplete replacement language; every redline includes a full, usable clause.
Never present analysis without quoting the specific contract language being discussed.
Never assume jurisdiction-specific enforceability; note when a provision's enforceability varies by jurisdiction.
Always produce contract-review.md as the primary deliverable.
Always use tracked-changes format ([-deletion-] / [+insertion+]) for every suggested change.
Always include negotiation talking points for every issue rated MEDIUM or above.
Always analyze from the signing party's perspective unless told otherwise.

Quality Standards

Be exhaustive. Review every section, not just the obviously problematic ones.
Be specific. Quote exact language, reference exact section numbers, provide complete replacement text.
Be practical. Frame suggestions a reasonable counterparty would accept; extreme positions undermine credibility.
Be balanced. Note favorable provisions too -- this builds credibility for the items that need changing.
Quantify where possible. Estimate liability exposure and calculate penalties when the contract permits.
Reference market standards. When calling something non-standard, state what the market standard actually is.

Want to see if onewave-ai/contract-redliner would activate on your phrasing? Try it before you install — no LLM call, no signup.

Latest benchmark · publisher runVerified

8/24/2026, 20:34 UTC · 23 cases

Measured on 20 comparable cases — below the 22 needed to publish a lift, so this result is shown here but not on the registry card or leaderboard.

Lift

+9%

61% vs 52%

Agent turns

1.0 vs 1.0

Tokens

+93%

3,743.15 vs 1,943.9

fail → pass · 5pass → pass · 9fail → fail · 6pass → fail · 3

Per-case results (23)

Case	Status	Duration (ms)			Turns			Tokens			Tool calls
Case	Status	Without	With	Δ	Without	With	Δ	Without	With	Δ	Without	With	Δ
case-01 I need to review this software vendor agreement before signing. Could you check `docs/vendor-msa.pdf` and generate a comprehensive markdown review report? I need a complete clause-by-clause analysis highlighting potential liabilities, custom replacement text in tracked-changes format for any risky terms, and talking points I can use during negotiation with the supplier.	fail→fail	9,255	9,630	+4%	1	1	0%	852	1,079	+27%	0	0	—
case-02 We're about to sign a new enterprise SaaS agreement. Please analyze the contract text at `./contracts/saas_terms.docx` and create a `contract-review.md` file for us. We want a section-by-section breakdown with risk ratings, concrete drop-in revision suggestions showing additions and deletions, and talking points for any provisions that present moderate to high concern for our side.	fail→fail	7,932	7,221	-9%	1	1	0%	409	1,105	+170%	0	0	—
case-03 Can you perform a full redline audit on the consulting services contract located at `agreements/consulting_v2.pdf`? Please draft a formal review document in markdown format that evaluates every section, provides full rewritten clause options for non-standard terms, and gives us strategic points to bring to the bargaining table.	fail→fail	4,203	6,107	+45%	1	1	0%	697	1,086	+56%	0	0	—
case-04 We are starting a new partnership project and need a fresh Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement drafted from scratch under New York law. Please generate a complete, clean NDA template ready for both parties to sign.	pass→fail	17,392	35,954	+107%	1	1	0%	3,177	6,003	+89%	0	0	—
case-05 Here is a list of 10 executed customer agreements. We need a summary table in CSV format extracting key metadata for our contract repository: Contract Title, Counterparty Name, Effective Date, Expiration Date, and Total Contract Value.	fail→fail	2,356	4,088	+74%	1	1	0%	303	1,237	+308%	0	0	—
case-06 What are the legal precedents and enforceability standards for non-compete agreements in California post-2024? Please summarize the relevant statutes, judicial exceptions, and employer implications.	pass→pass	22,150	19,653	-11%	1	1	0%	3,181	4,229	+33%	0	0	—
case-07 Please translate this French commercial lease clause into English for our records: `Le preneur s'engage a maintenir les lieux en bon etat de reparations locatives pendant toute la duree du bail.`	pass→pass	5,883	8,146	+38%	1	1	0%	805	2,115	+163%	0	0	—
case-08 Below is an API licensing agreement presented by DataCorp to our startup Acme Inc. We are evaluating whether to sign it. Analyze the terms and output `contract-review.md` with proposed amendments and negotiation points. ```text Section 1. Indemnification. Licensee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Licensor against all third-party claims arising from Licensee's use of the Service. Section 2. Limitation of Liability. Licensor's maximum cumulative liability under this agreement shall not exceed $100. ```	fail→pass	11,681	21,336	+83%	1	1	0%	2,201	4,606	+109%	0	0	—
case-09 Review Section 5 (Confidentiality) of this vendor contract and produce the review output in `contract-review.md`. Note: for any suggested changes, just give a summary bullet of what to change so our lawyer can draft the exact wording later. ```text Section 5. Confidentiality. Receiving Party shall protect Disclosing Party's Confidential Information for a period of 50 years using extreme measures. ```	fail→pass	9,385	43,418	+363%	1	1	0%	1,689	3,659	+117%	0	0	—
case-10 Please run a legal audit on this short equipment lease agreement and save the report to `contract-review.md`. Only analyze Section 2 because Section 1 is just standard boilerplate governing law. ```text Section 1. Governing Law. This Agreement is governed by Delaware law. Section 2. Maintenance. Lessee is solely responsible for all maintenance, repairs, and total replacement of equipment regardless of fault or pre-existing defects. ```	fail→pass	7,390	24,360	+230%	1	1	0%	1,105	2,079	+88%	0	0	—
case-11 Review the following termination clause from a services agreement and output the audit to `contract-review.md`: ```text Section 8. Termination. Client may terminate this Agreement only upon 180 days prior written notice and payment of an early termination fee equal to 100% of remaining contract value. ```	fail→pass	11,583	18,908	+63%	1	1	0%	1,867	4,044	+117%	0	0	—
case-12 Audit this employee non-solicitation and liquidated damages provision and output the report to `contract-review.md`: ```text Section 12. Non-Solicitation. For 5 years post-termination, Contractor shall not solicit any employee or client. Violation results in automatic liquidated damages of $500,000. ```	pass→fail	16,439	14,022	-15%	1	1	0%	2,611	3,259	+25%	0	0	—
case-13 Evaluate the following indemnification clause for an IT support contract and write the results into `contract-review.md`: ```text Section 4. Indemnification. Customer agrees to indemnify Vendor against all claims, losses, and legal fees regardless of Vendor's negligence or willful misconduct. ```	pass→fail	10,812	18,905	+75%	1	1	0%	1,796	2,511	+40%	0	0	—
case-14 Perform a contract review on this SLA warranty clause and output to `contract-review.md`: ```text Section 3. Warranty. Provider warrants 99.0% uptime. Provider's sole liability and Customer's exclusive remedy for downtime is a service credit of 1% of monthly fees per 24 hours of downtime. ```	pass→pass	14,454	21,631	+50%	1	1	0%	2,375	4,633	+95%	0	0	—
case-15 Review this IP assignment clause in an independent contractor agreement and generate the review file `contract-review.md`: ```text Section 6. Intellectual Property. All intellectual property created by Contractor prior to or during the term, whether related to the Services or not, shall automatically become exclusive property of Client. ```	fail→pass	17,098	16,069	-6%	1	1	0%	2,361	3,482	+47%	0	0	—
case-16 Analyze this limitation of liability clause and write the analysis to `contract-review.md`. Use standard strikethrough markdown (`~~text~~`) for deleted text and bold (`text`) for new text. ```text Section 9. Liability. In no event shall Company be liable for indirect, special, or consequential damages. ```	fail→fail	14,828	14,997	+1%	1	1	0%	2,475	3,511	+42%	0	0	—
case-17 We have a vendor agreement hosted online at `https://example.com/legal/master_services_v3.pdf`. Please review it and write the clause-by-clause analysis to `contract-review.md`.	fail→fail	4,203	38,242	+810%	1	1	0%	653	6,959	+966%	0	0	—
case-18 Review this uncapped liability provision for a cloud hosting contract and write the output to `contract-review.md`: ```text Section 11. Indemnity Exposure. Subscriber shall indemnify CloudCo for any regulatory fines or third-party claims resulting from data breaches on Subscriber's account, without any cap or limitation. ```	pass→pass	13,136	11,877	-10%	1	1	0%	2,039	2,875	+41%	0	0	—
case-19 Review this supply agreement text and generate `contract-review.md`: ```text Section 1. Pricing. Supplier agrees to fixed pricing for 3 years with a mandatory 5% discount on bulk orders over 100 units. Section 2. Termination. Supplier may terminate this agreement at any time without cause upon 2 days written notice. ```	pass→pass	12,496	20,945	+68%	1	1	0%	1,838	3,906	+113%	0	0	—
case-20 Analyze this software audit provision and save the review report to `contract-review.md`: ```text Section 14. Audit Rights. Vendor may enter Customer's premises at any time without notice to audit Customer's software installations. If underpayment exceeds 1%, Customer pays full cost of audit plus 50% penalty. ```	pass→pass	13,502	15,372	+14%	1	1	0%	2,134	3,438	+61%	0	0	—
case-21 Review this dispute resolution clause in a service agreement for a UK company contracting with a US vendor, and output to `contract-review.md`: ```text Section 15. Jurisdiction. This Agreement shall be governed exclusively by the laws of Tokyo, Japan, and all disputes shall be litigated exclusively in District Court of Tokyo in the Japanese language. ```	pass→pass	15,053	23,254	+54%	1	1	0%	2,389	4,478	+87%	0	0	—
case-22 Perform a contract review on this auto-renewal section and generate `contract-review.md`: ```text Section 4. Term and Renewal. This Agreement automatically renews for successive 3-year terms unless Client provides written notice of non-renewal exactly 120 days prior to expiration via certified mail. ```	pass→pass	10,960	16,859	+54%	1	1	0%	1,969	3,699	+88%	0	0	—
case-23 Evaluate the following modification clause from a commercial agreement and write the review to `contract-review.md`: ```text Section 18. Amendments. Company reserves the right to modify these terms at any time by posting updated terms on its website. Continued use of Service constitutes acceptance. ```	pass→pass	12,086	18,952	+57%	1	1	0%	1,910	4,140	+117%	0	0	—

These cases were also screened by the skill’s intent / safety pass.See the Trust review ↗Reproduce this benchmark in Colab ↗

How this skill was measured

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. 23 cases were attempted, and 20 counted toward the lift figure. The other 3 produced results that are not comparable between the two arms, so they are excluded from the headline rather than averaged into it. The headline lift of +9 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 20 comparable cases. 3 cases got worse with the skill loaded, and they are included in that figure.

Model measured: gemini-3.6-flash
Graded by: gemini-3.6-flash
Grading method: judged
Verification: verified
Pass rate without the skill: 52.2%
Pass rate with the skill: 60.9%
Cases attempted: 23
Cases counted toward lift: 20
Cases that regressed: 3
Skill version measured: v1
Run completed: 8/24/2026, 20:34 UTC

Measured example — same prompt, with vs. without the skill · from the benchmark run · case case-08

Prompt

Below is an API licensing agreement presented by DataCorp to our startup Acme Inc. We are evaluating whether to sign it. Analyze the terms and output `contract-review.md` with proposed amendments and negotiation points.

```text
Section 1. Indemnification. Licensee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Licensor against all third-party claims arising from Licensee's use of the Service.
Section 2. Limitation of Liability. Licensor's maximum cumulative liability under this agreement shall not exceed $100.
```

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.

Show both answers

SkillScore blends 4 signals1 of 4 complete

BenchmarkPass rate WITH skill on a verified run61

Live evalNeeds ≥20 evaluated traces in 30 days

AI ratingNeeds ≥10 rated traces

AdoptionNeeds ≥10 serves across ≥2 orgs in 30 days

Efficiency · separate axis (at equal correctness)+0% turns+80% tokens

Shown for transparency; not credited unless a verified run shows no correctness regression.

Backed by 1 of 4 signals — each added signal makes the score more robust.

Verified on gemini-3.6-flash · re-tested 4 days ago

Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.