Reads a contract or agreement, identifies clauses that are unfavorable, one-sided,
or carry hidden risk, and produces a structured negotiation strategy document with
specific counter-proposals ranked by priority. Benchmarks replacement language
against CommonPaper standard clauses (CC BY 4.0) to ensure proposed alternatives
reflect market norms.
This skill performs analysis only — it does not create new contracts. It reads the
source document and outputs a negotiation strategy in Markdown.
Legal Disclaimer: This skill generates AI-assisted analysis for informational
purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. All counter-proposals and
replacement language must be reviewed by a licensed attorney before use in any
binding agreement. No attorney-client relationship is created by using this tool.
.md, .txt, or .pdf)exist, ask the user to confirm which one to analyze.
effective date, governing law, and contract type.
leverage context (e.g., small vendor vs. enterprise buyer).
if not modified.
if changed.
but may face pushback), LOW (aggressive position)
Generate a single Markdown file named NEGOTIATION-STRATEGY-{contract-name}.md with:
# Negotiation Strategy: {Contract Name}
## Summary
- Contract: {name}
- Parties: {Party A} / {Party B}
- Representing: {which party}
- Date analyzed: {date}
- Clauses flagged: {count} ({MUST}: N, {SHOULD}: N, {NICE}: N)
## Risk Overview
{2-3 sentence executive summary of overall contract fairness}
## MUST-CHANGE Clauses
### 1. {Section Reference} — {Short Description}
**Original:** > {quoted text}
**Risk:** {plain English explanation}
**Counter-Proposal:** {replacement language}
**Confidence:** {HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW}
**Talking Points:**
- {point 1}
- {point 2}
## SHOULD-CHANGE Clauses
{same format}
## NICE-TO-CHANGE Clauses
{same format}
## Negotiation Email Draft
{professional email template}
## Benchmarks Referenced
- CommonPaper Standard Cloud Agreement (CC BY 4.0)
- {other relevant standards}
| Error | Cause | Solution |
|---|---|---|
| No contract file found | Missing or wrong path | Ask user for the file location |
| Ambiguous party role | Cannot determine who user represents | Ask user to clarify their position |
| Non-English contract | Skill optimized for English common law | Warn user; provide best-effort analysis with caveats |
| Highly specialized terms | Domain-specific clauses (e.g., pharma, defense) | Flag as requiring specialist review |
| PDF format unreadable | Scanned image PDF | Ask user for text version or OCR output |
Example 1: SaaS Vendor Agreement
Request: "Analyze this vendor agreement and generate counter-proposals — we're the customer"
Result: Strategy document identifying 12 clauses across 3 tiers:
without 60-day notice window
broad IP license grant
Example 2: Freelancer Service Agreement
Request: "Review this freelance contract — I'm the freelancer"
Result: Strategy identifying one-sided IP assignment (propose limited license), missing
kill fee provision (propose 25% kill fee after kickoff), and 2-year non-compete
(propose narrowing to direct competitors for 6 months).