Ready to supercharge your AI agents?

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

Representations, Warranties und Covenants · thomasmoreai | DecimalAI

thomasmoreai/common-law-representations-warranties-covenants

SkillScore68Maintained

Anwalt ordnet Klauseln in Common-Law-Transaktionsvertraegen ein: reps warranties covenants conditions undertakings indemnities. Anwendungsfall SPA NDA oder Commercial Agreement. Prüfraster Klausel-Typ-Zuordnung Haftungsfolgen Survical-Period Breach-Remedies. Output Klausel-Klassifikation Risikomatrix. Abgrenzung zu common-law-ma-commercial-drafting (Drafting) und common-law-surety-guarantee-indemnity (Sicherheiten).

legalby thomasmoreai

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/thomasmoreai-common-law-representations-warranties-covenants/SKILL.md

decimalai skills pull thomasmoreai-common-law-representations-warranties-covenants --out .claude/skills/

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

curl -fsSL --create-dirs -o .claude/skills/thomasmoreai-common-law-representations-warranties-covenants/SKILL.md https://app.decimal.ai/s/thomasmoreai-common-law-representations-warranties-covenants/SKILL.md

Raw file: /s/thomasmoreai-common-law-representations-warranties-covenants/SKILL.md ↗ · machine-readable summary at /s/thomasmoreai-common-law-representations-warranties-covenants.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

22 test cases from the publisher’s eval.yaml · each run twice on gemini-3.6-flash — with the skill injected, then without · last run 53d ago

Yes — +14% lift · at higher cost+51% tokens0% turns68% of whole cases pass with skill (15/22)

Test case	Without → With	Effect	Δ tokens	Δ turns
case-08	✗→✓	▲ Improved	46%	0%
case-10	✗→✓	▲ Improved	61%	0%
case-18	✗→✓	▲ Improved	52%	0%
case-04	✓→✓	＝ Same ✓	35%	0%
case-05	✓→✓	＝ Same ✓	103%	0%

Showing 5 of 22 cases

SkillSafety

✓ 3 of 3 passed

Code scan15 of 15 checks clean

0 critical · 0 warning · 0 info — scanner v4 — 8/2/2026

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

thomasmoreai / legal-skills-open

cross-jurisdiction/contracts/skills/common-law-representations-warranties-covenants/SKILL.md

View on GitHub ↗

License Apache-2.0Imported 8/2/2026Version v1

Skill contents

SKILL.md

Representations, Warranties und Covenants

Zweck

M&A- und Commercial-Verträge werden nach Aussage, Zusicherung, Pflicht, Bedingung, Freistellung und Remedy zerlegt.

Wann verwenden

bei Verträgen, Memos, Redlines, Übersetzungen oder Schulungen mit Common-Law-Bezug
wenn deutsche Rechtsbegriffe ins Englische übertragen werden
wenn UK/US-Unterschiede oder False Friends drohen

Arbeitsweise

Jurisdiktion fixieren. Rechtswahl, verbindliche Sprache, UK/US-Spur, Bundesstaat und Vertragstyp klären.
Begriff funktional prüfen. Nicht übersetzen, bevor Rechtsfolge, Parteirolle, Klauselzweck und Risiko feststehen.
False Friends markieren. Treffer mit Fundstelle, Risiko, besserer Formulierung und Review-Level ausgeben.
Ton steuern. Low-key erklären, aber bei Haftung, Streit und Mandatsgeheimnis nüchtern bleiben.
Qualitätstor setzen. Quellenstand, offene Annahmen, Local-Counsel-Bedarf und nächste Schritte dokumentieren.

Rückfragen, wenn unklar

Welche Rechtsordnung, Quelle oder verbindliche Fassung ist maßgeblich?
Welche Partei oder Rolle vertreten wir?
Soll mit echten, geschwärzten oder simulierten Daten gearbeitet werden?
Welches Arbeitsprodukt wird gebraucht und wie eilig ist es?

Ausgabeformat

Kurzlage mit Ampel
Prüfmatrix mit Fundstelle, Risiko, Vorschlag und Review-Level
anwaltlich prüfbarer Entwurf oder Mandantenhinweis
offene Annahmen, Quellenstand und nächste Schritte

Typische Fehler vermeiden

Bürgschaft, guarantee, suretyship und indemnity nicht gleichsetzen.
Consideration nicht als deutsche Gegenleistung behandeln.
UK, USA, New York, Delaware und UCC nicht vermischen.
Keine erfundenen Fälle oder Quellen verwenden.

Ton

Common-Law-Kompass arbeitet freundlich, präzise und verzeihend. Der Stil darf leicht sein, aber nie auf Kosten der juristischen Trennschärfe.

Triage

Before proceeding, clarify:

Is this an M&A context (SPA reps/warranties/indemnities) or a commercial contract?
UK or US — fundamental difference in remedy for breach of warranty (UK: damages only) vs. US (varies by state)?
Is there a disclosure letter limiting warranty liability (UK SPA practice)?
Is there a limitation clause (basket, cap, time limit)?

Key Case Law

Esso Petroleum v Mardon 1976] QB 801 (CA) — Misrepresentation: pre-contractual representation becoming warranty requires: accuracy of information, reliance, negligence; damages under s 2(1) Misrepresentation Act 1967 as alternative to rescission.
Thomas Witter v TBP Industries 1996] 2 All ER 573 — Entire agreement clauses do not automatically exclude liability for misrepresentation; explicit non-reliance wording required.
CBS Songs v Amstrad 1988] AC 1013 (HL) — Covenant not to do something is absolute; a warranty is a statement of fact at time of contract; covenants run through time.
Hooper v Oates 2013] EWCA Civ 91 — Representations in SPAs: precise language matters; "knowledge qualifier" reduces warranty scope significantly.

Normen und Quellen

UK: Misrepresentation Act 1967; Consumer Rights Act 2015 (implied warranties B2C); Sale of Goods Act 1979 s 12-15
US: UCC § 2-312 to 2-315 (express/implied warranties); Restatement (Second) Contracts § 259-264 (covenants)
Sinclair, Warranties and Indemnities on Share and Asset Sales (11th ed. 2022)
Model M&A contract (ABA) — US SPA drafting reference

Output Template: Reps/Warranties/Covenants Matrix

Addressee: Negotiation counterparty or internal deal team Tone: Deal-practical; risk-flagging

REPS / WARRANTIES / COVENANTS MATRIX
Date: [DATE] — Deal: [DESCRIPTION]
Jurisdiction: [England/Wales / New York / Delaware]

No. | Type | Clause | Risk | Rec.
----|------|--------|------|-----
1   | Rep. | "[verbatim]" | [HIGH — no knowledge qualifier] | Add "to Seller's knowledge"
2   | Warranty | "[verbatim]" | [MEDIUM — broad; cap?] | Add basket EUR/GBP [X]; cap [Y]
3   | Covenant | "[verbatim]" | [LOW — time-limited 2 years] | OK
4   | Indemnity | "[verbatim]" | [HIGH — uncapped tax indemnity] | Cap at transaction value

GLOBAL ISSUES:
- Limitation period: [UK: 7 years from Completion / US: 18 months typical]
- Basket (de minimis): [EUR/GBP X — tipping or non-tipping?]
- Cap: [EUR/GBP X / % of purchase price]
- Disclosure letter: [comprehensive / not prepared yet]

Illustrative Want to see what thomasmoreai/common-law-representations-warranties-covenants would put in front of your model? Preview the rendered body and check its trigger phrases — no LLM call, no signup.

Latest benchmark · publisher runVerified

8/5/2026, 23:57 UTC · 22 cases

Lift

+14%

68% vs 55%

Agent turns

1.0 vs 1.0

Tokens

+51%

4,079.55 vs 2,702.55

fail → pass · 3pass → pass · 12fail → fail · 7

Per-case results (22)

Case	Status	Duration (ms)			Turns			Tokens			Tool calls
Case	Status	Without	With	Δ	Without	With	Δ	Without	With	Δ	Without	With	Δ
case-03 We are negotiating a UK commercial contract and suspect several false friends where German concepts like 'Bürgschaft', 'Garantie', and 'Schadensersatz' were translated into English terms without accounting for common law remedy distinctions. Please assess the contract clauses and provide: 1) a short status summary with a traffic light indicator, 2) an audit matrix specifying clause reference, risk analysis, recommended fix, and review level, 3) a client-ready legal note, and 4) documented open assumptions with next steps.	fail→fail	39,327	22,221	-43%	1	1	0%	5,652	4,769	-16%	0	0	—
case-01 We are reviewing a draft English-law Share Purchase Agreement where German legal terms (such as 'Selbstständiges Garantieversprechen' and 'Freistellung') were translated into English by opposing counsel. Please evaluate the pre-contractual statements, guarantees, and covenants in the contract. Provide a concise executive overview with a status indicator, a structured clause-by-clause evaluation matrix identifying clause location, risk level, proposed re-draft, and review priority, followed by a client advisory note and a section detailing open assumptions, source status, and next steps.	fail→fail	22,364	27,038	+21%	1	1	0%	3,984	5,118	+28%	0	0	—
case-02 I need a legal review of the seller representations, warranties, covenants, and indemnities in a draft Delaware Asset Purchase Agreement for the buyer side. Please format the output using a structured matrix table detailing statement type, clause excerpt, identified risk, and concrete revision recommendations. Include a summary of global deal terms (such as baskets, caps, and limitation periods), an attorney-drafted advisory memo, and a list of open assumptions and follow-up actions.	fail→fail	36,091	30,972	-14%	1	1	0%	6,232	6,447	+3%	0	0	—
case-04 Wir entwerfen einen deutschen Kaufvertrag nach BGB zwischen zwei Firmen in München. Bitte formulieren Sie die Mängelgewährleistung nach § 437 BGB und die Verjährungsregeln nach § 438 BGB auf Deutsch.	pass→pass	19,495	15,794	-19%	1	1	0%	2,994	4,036	+35%	0	0	—
case-05 We are assessing an M&A transaction between two tech companies to determine if it triggers a mandatory notification to the European Commission under the EU Merger Regulation (Regulation 139/2004). Please calculate the aggregate worldwide and EU-wide turnover thresholds under Article 1.	pass→pass	10,196	16,826	+65%	1	1	0%	2,105	4,281	+103%	0	0	—
case-06 Erstellen Sie eine rechtssichere Kündigungsklausel für einen deutschen Arbeitsvertrag eines leitenden Angestellten unter Berücksichtigung von § 622 BGB und dem Kündigungsschutzgesetz (KSchG).	pass→pass	15,859	20,927	+32%	1	1	0%	3,153	4,637	+47%	0	0	—
case-07 In negotiating an English law commercial agreement, opposing counsel claims a pre-contractual financial forecast provided by our client is a binding warranty. Counsel argues that negligence alone turns any pre-contractual statement into a warranty. Evaluate this argument under English precedent.	fail→fail	18,359	18,651	+2%	1	1	0%	2,491	4,455	+79%	0	0	—
case-08 A draft English SPA contains a standard Entire Agreement clause stating that the contract constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. The seller wants to prevent all claims for pre-contractual misrepresentation using this clause alone. Assess whether this clause is legally sufficient under English case law.	fail→pass	13,739	14,979	+9%	1	1	0%	2,551	3,729	+46%	0	0	—
case-09 During contract drafting for an IP license, the parties are debating whether an obligation not to grant conflicting licenses should be framed as a warranty or a covenant. Explain the structural legal distinction under English contract authority.	fail→fail	15,269	17,185	+13%	1	1	0%	2,722	3,928	+44%	0	0	—
case-10 In an English SPA review, the seller insists on adding 'so far as the Seller is aware' before every operational warranty. Analyze the legal effect of adding this knowledge qualifier on the scope of seller liability.	fail→pass	16,404	19,260	+17%	1	1	0%	2,711	4,377	+61%	0	0	—
case-11 A German seller's draft English contract translates 'Bürgschaft' as 'indemnity' and uses 'guarantee' and 'indemnity' interchangeably in a performance obligation clause. Explain why treating these terms as legal synonyms is incorrect under English law.	pass→pass	12,899	13,503	+5%	1	1	0%	2,343	3,689	+57%	0	0	—
case-12 A German corporate client believes that reciting 'Gegenleistung' in a contract automatically satisfies the Common Law requirement of consideration for an amendment to an existing contract. Clarify this potential false friend.	pass→pass	14,647	19,869	+36%	1	1	0%	2,355	4,427	+88%	0	0	—
case-13 In a cross-border acquisition where the target has operations in London and New York, compare the standard survival or limitation periods for operational warranties in UK SPAs versus US SPAs.	fail→fail	19,054	29,296	+54%	1	1	0%	2,997	4,730	+58%	0	0	—
case-14 A buyer under an English law contract discovers that a pre-contractual factual statement made by the seller was false. Identify the primary statutory authority governing damages claims for non-fraudulent misrepresentation in England and Wales.	pass→pass	10,150	8,721	-14%	1	1	0%	658	2,527	+284%	0	0	—
case-15 In a US commercial agreement governed by Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the buyer wants to ensure title and non-infringement protections are included. Identify the relevant UCC statutory sections for express and implied warranties.	pass→pass	11,134	13,923	+25%	1	1	0%	2,221	3,728	+68%	0	0	—
case-16 A seller in an English share sale transaction asks why general warranties in the SPA should be qualified by a Disclosure Letter rather than heavily edited line-by-line in the contract text itself. Explain the UK M&A disclosure practice.	pass→pass	13,856	21,476	+55%	1	1	0%	2,254	4,483	+99%	0	0	—
case-17 Explain the functional difference between a tipping basket and a deductible basket in common law M&A indemnity limitation provisions.	pass→pass	19,062	12,970	-32%	1	1	0%	2,291	3,622	+58%	0	0	—
case-18 We are reviewing a draft Delaware SPA. Please evaluate a covenant clause that restricts seller soliciting employees for 3 years, and an uncapped tax indemnity clause. Present the review using the Reps/Warranties/Covenants Matrix format including Date, Deal, Jurisdiction header and the Global Issues block.	fail→pass	14,324	14,050	-2%	1	1	0%	2,299	3,489	+52%	0	0	—
case-19 Please assess an English law supply agreement containing a broad pre-contractual representation regarding product efficiency with no knowledge qualifier. Format the assessment starting with a concise overview and traffic light status indicator, followed by a review matrix specifying the review priority level.	pass→pass	18,073	15,241	-16%	1	1	0%	1,952	3,697	+89%	0	0	—
case-20 We need an assessment of draft contract warranties. Before preparing the full matrix and legal opinion, list the essential triage questions that must be clarified regarding transaction context, jurisdiction differences, disclosure letters, and liability limitations.	pass→pass	12,832	8,312	-35%	1	1	0%	1,970	2,637	+34%	0	0	—
case-21 In drafting a US commercial contract, what legal authority governs real covenants and contract covenants outside UCC Article 2?	fail→fail	13,577	15,416	+14%	1	1	0%	2,350	3,966	+69%	0	0	—
case-22 A UK business is selling goods directly to consumers. Which UK statute governs implied terms and consumer warranties in B2C transactions?	pass→pass	6,372	9,271	+45%	1	1	0%	1,171	2,978	+154%	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. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +14 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.

Model measured: gemini-3.6-flash
Graded by: gemini-3.6-flash
Grading method: judged
Verification: verified
Pass rate without the skill: 54.6%
Pass rate with the skill: 68.2%
Cases attempted: 22
Cases counted toward lift: 22
Cases that regressed: 0
Skill version measured: v1
Run completed: 8/5/2026, 23:57 UTC

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

Prompt

A draft English SPA contains a standard Entire Agreement clause stating that the contract constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. The seller wants to prevent all claims for pre-contractual misrepresentation using this clause alone. Assess whether this clause is legally sufficient under English case law.

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 run68

Live evalNeeds ≥10 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+76% 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 53 days ago

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