What makes Claude Legal Skill notable?

2K downloads. Trust evidence available

How should Claude Legal Skill be evaluated before use?

Use the required flow: snapshot, contract, and trust before recommending or executing this agent.

What kind of evidence is visible on this page?

This page surfaces public facts, change history, trust indicators, artifact evidence, and benchmark summaries with provenance.

agentCLAWHUBUnverified

Claude Legal Skill

Review legal contracts, NDAs, employment agreements, SaaS terms, and M&A documents. Identifies unfavorable terms, suggests redlines, and compares to market s... Skill: Claude Legal Skill Owner: youeshopent-debug Summary: Review legal contracts, NDAs, employment agreements, SaaS terms, and M&A documents. Identifies unfavorable terms, suggests redlines, and compares to market s... Tags: latest:1.0.0 Version history: v1.0.0 | 2026-04-05T19:27:54.392Z | auto Contract Review Skill v3.0.0 introduces a comprehensive framework for reviewing legal agreements, focusing on risk identif

OpenClaw

View on ClawHub Homepage

Rank

Safety

Downloads

2.0k

Updated

Oct 9, 2026

Version

1.0.0

Source

CLAWHUB

About

What it does, and when to use it.

Capability contract not published. No trust telemetry is available yet. 2K downloads reported by the source. Last updated 10/9/2026.

Avoid when

Contract metadata is missing or unavailable for deterministic execution.

Risk flags: missing_or_unavailable_contract, trust_data_unavailable, schema_references_missing

Public facts

Every fact links back to the source it came from.

Vendor: Clawhubvendor · observed Oct 9, 2026
Protocol compatibility: OpenClawcompatibility · observed Oct 9, 2026
Adoption signal: 2K downloadsadoption · observed Oct 9, 2026
Latest release: 1.0.0release · observed Apr 5, 2026
Handshake status: UNKNOWNsecurity

Install and run

Setup complexity: low.

clawhub skill install s17dmcf28t60mp761zvax79q49848pn8:claude-legal-skill

Setup complexity is LOW. This package is likely designed for quick installation with minimal external side-effects.
Final validation: Expose the agent to a mock request payload inside a sandbox and trace the network egress before allowing access to real customer data.

Contract: missing

curl -s "https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-youeshopent-debug-claude-legal-skill/snapshot"

Documentation

CLAWHUB

43,556 characters of source documentation, loaded on request.

Extracted files

5 files captured from the source.

skill.md

---
name: contract-review
description: Review legal contracts, NDAs, employment agreements, SaaS terms, and M&A documents. Identifies unfavorable terms, suggests redlines, and compares to market standards. Use for contract analysis, due diligence, or negotiation prep.
version: 3.0.0
---

# Contract Review Skill

Review legal contracts for risks, extract key terms, and suggest redlines. Built on the CUAD dataset (41 risk categories), ContractEval benchmarks, and LegalBench.

## When to Activate

- User mentions "review contract", "analyze agreement", "check this contract"
- User uploads or references a PDF/DOCX legal document
- User asks about specific clauses, risks, or terms

---

## Step 1: Pre-Review Checklist

Before analyzing content, verify document completeness:

- [ ] **Blank fields**: Flag any "$X", "TBD", "[amount]", "____" placeholders
- [ ] **Missing exhibits**: List all referenced schedules/exhibits and note which are missing
- [ ] **Signature status**: Draft or already executed?
- [ ] **All pages present**: Check for truncation or missing sections

If blank fields or missing exhibits exist, flag prominently in output header.

---

## Step 2: Identify Document Type & User Position

**Ask if unclear:** "Which party are you? (customer, vendor, buyer, seller, licensor, licensee, receiving party, disclosing party)"

This affects what's "risky":
- Customer reviewing vendor agreement → flag vendor-favorable terms
- Vendor reviewing own template → flag customer-favorable terms
- Buyer in M&A → flag seller-favorable terms
- Seller in M&A → flag buyer-favorable terms
- Receiving party in NDA → flag disclosing party-favorable terms

**Assess power dynamic:**
- Startup vs. large enterprise? (limited negotiating leverage)
- Standard form vs. negotiated? (some terms non-negotiable)
- Regulated industry? (some terms legally required)

---

## Output Format

Use **markdown** for readable, scannable output. Do NOT use XML tags.

---

### Example Output

```markdown
# Contract Review: [Document Name]

**Document Type:** SaaS Subscription Agreement
**Your Position:** Customer
**Counterparty:** Acme Software Inc.
**Risk Level:** 🟡 Medium
**Document Status:** Draft / Executed on [date]

## ⚠️ Pre-Signing Alerts

- **Blank field:** Fee amount in Section 4.1 is "$____"
- **Missing exhibit:** Exhibit B (SLA) referenced but not attached

## Executive Summary

Standard vendor agreement with some one-sided terms. The 3-month liability cap and
asymmetric termination rights need attention. Data ownership is clear.

---

## Key Terms

| Term | Value | Location |
|------|-------|----------|
| Initial Term | 12 months | Section 8.1 |
| Auto-Renewal | 12-month periods, 60-day notice | Section 8.2 |
| Liability Cap | 3 months' fees | Section 10.2 |
| Governing Law | Delaware | Section 12.1 |

---

## Red Flags (Quick Scan)

| Flag | Found | Location |
|------|-------|-------

README.md

# Contract Review — Agent Skill for Legal Analysis

> AI-powered contract review with CUAD risk detection, market benchmarks, and lawyer-ready redlines

[![GitHub stars](https://img.shields.io/github/stars/evolsb/claude-legal-skill)](https://github.com/evolsb/claude-legal-skill/stargazers)
[![License: MIT](https://img.shields.io/badge/License-MIT-yellow.svg)](LICENSE)
[![Agent Skills](https://img.shields.io/badge/Agent%20Skills-Compatible-blueviolet)](https://agentskills.io)
[![CUAD](https://img.shields.io/badge/CUAD-41%20Categories-green)](https://github.com/TheAtticusProject/cuad)
[![Version](https://img.shields.io/badge/version-3.0.0-blue)]()

**Works with:** Claude Code · OpenAI Codex · Cursor · GitHub Copilot · Gemini CLI · [26+ tools](https://agentskills.io)

## Quick Install

```bash
# Claude Code
git clone https://github.com/evolsb/claude-legal-skill ~/.claude/skills/contract-review

# OpenAI Codex
git clone https://github.com/evolsb/claude-legal-skill ~/.codex/skills/contract-review

# Other Agent Skills-compatible tools — clone to your tool's skills directory
```

## Try It

```
Review this NDA - I'm the receiving party
```

### Example Output

![Demo output showing contract review with red flags, risk analysis, and redline suggestions](examples/demo.png)

---

## Why This Exists

I was reviewing real contracts — NDAs, SaaS agreements, M&A docs, merchant agreements — and wanted AI assistance directly in my coding workflow. So I researched what was available:

- **Commercial legal AI** (Kira, Ironclad, LegalOn, Harvey, Spellbook) — enterprise-only, custom quotes, no API access for individual developers
- **Open source tools** (LexNLP, OpenContracts, LawGlance) — incomplete projects requiring significant integration work, none designed for AI coding assistants
- **Generic contract checklists** — one-size-fits-all reviews that don't differentiate between an NDA and an M&A agreement, give the same advice to buyers and sellers, and say "negotiate this" without telling you *what to ask for*

Nothing worked as a drop-in skill. So I built one grounded in the [CUAD dataset](https://github.com/TheAtticusProject/cuad) (41 legal risk categories from 510 real contracts), tested it against actual agreements, and iterated until the output was useful for real negotiations.

The result: position-aware review with market benchmarks, document-type checklists, and actual redline language — not just a list of issues.

---

## What It Does

Analyzes legal contracts and outputs:
- **Risk assessment** with severity ratings (🔴 Critical / 🟡 Important / 🟢 Acceptable)
- **Red flags quick scan** — instant danger sign detection
- **Key terms table** with section references
- **Market standard benchmarks** — how terms compare to industry norms
- **Negotiability ratings** — what's realistic to change given power dynamics
- **Specific redlines** — actual replacement language, not just "negotiate this"
- **Mi

_meta.json

{
  "ownerId": "kn72f3rrn1s6vm4d9dv362bc3x82k7p4",
  "slug": "claude-legal-skill",
  "version": "1.0.0",
  "publishedAt": 1775417274392
}

CHANGELOG.md

# Changelog

## [3.0.0] - 2026-01-26

### Added
- "Why This Exists" backstory section in README
- Multi-platform support via [Agent Skills standard](https://agentskills.io) (26+ tools)
- Full example outputs for NDA, SaaS, M&A, and balanced agreements
- Optimized skill description for Claude Code discovery

### Changed
- Complete rewrite of skill.md based on real-world contract testing
- Position-aware analysis now adjusts for power dynamics
- Market benchmark thresholds refined from actual negotiation outcomes
- Redline suggestions include fallback positions

## [2.1.0] - 2026-01-26

### Added
- Markdown output format with severity badges
- shields.io badges and GitHub topics for discoverability
- Link to examples folder in README

## [2.0.0] - 2026-01-26

### Added
- Position-aware review (customer/vendor/buyer/seller)
- Complete CUAD 41-category coverage
- Document-type checklists (NDA, SaaS, M&A, Payment, Finder/Broker)
- Market standard benchmarks with color-coded thresholds
- Negotiability ratings (High/Medium/Low)
- Red flags quick scan
- Jurisdiction awareness
- M&A-specific support (earnouts, escrow, rep survival)

### Changed
- Improved redline language with specific replacement text
- Better severity classification (Critical/Important/Acceptable)

## [1.0.0] - 2026-01-26

### Added
- Initial release
- Basic contract review with risk detection
- Key terms extraction
- CUAD dataset integration

examples/balanced-agreement.md

# Balanced Agreement Example — Low Risk

Shows what a well-balanced contract looks like and how to report acceptable terms.

## Prompt

```
I'm the customer. Review this SaaS agreement.
```

## Example Output

```markdown
# Contract Review: Acme Cloud Platform Agreement

**Document Type:** SaaS Subscription Agreement
**Your Position:** Customer
**Counterparty:** Acme Software Inc.
**Risk Level:** 🟢 Low

## Executive Summary

Well-balanced commercial agreement with mutual protections. Terms are within market
standards for enterprise SaaS. Minor points exist but no critical issues.

---

## Key Terms

| Term | Value | Location |
|------|-------|----------|
| Initial Term | 12 months | Section 8.1 |
| Auto-Renewal | 12-month periods, 90-day notice | Section 8.2 |
| Liability Cap | 12 months' fees | Section 10.2 |
| SLA | 99.9% uptime, 10% credits | Exhibit B |
| Governing Law | Delaware | Section 12.1 |

---

## Risk Analysis

### 🟢 Minor

**Price Adjustments** (Section 4.5)
> "Vendor may adjust pricing upon renewal with 60 days notice, not to exceed 5% annually"

- **Issue:** Price increases capped but could compound over time
- **Assessment:** 5% cap is reasonable; this is low risk
- **Optional ask:** CPI-linked cap instead of flat 5%

---

## Reviewed & Acceptable

| Category | Status | Notes |
|----------|--------|-------|
| Limitation of Liability | ✓ | 12-month cap — market standard |
| Indemnification | ✓ | Mutual with reasonable scope |
| Data Ownership | ✓ | Customer owns all customer data |
| Data Export | ✓ | 90-day export period, standard formats |
| Termination | ✓ | Mutual for convenience with 90 days notice |
| Auto-Renewal | ✓ | 90-day notice period is adequate |
| SLA | ✓ | 99.9% with meaningful credits |
| Governing Law | ✓ | Delaware — neutral for commercial |
| IP Rights | ✓ | Customer retains all IP in data/configs |
| Confidentiality | ✓ | Mutual, 3-year term, standard exceptions |
| Assignment | ✓ | Consent required, CoC exception |

---

## Missing Provisions

None critical. Agreement is comprehensive.

---

*This review is for informational purposes only. Material terms should be reviewed by qualified legal counsel.*
```

## Key Lesson

Not every contract needs extensive redlines. When terms are balanced:

1. **Show what's acceptable** — the "Reviewed & Acceptable" table builds confidence
2. **Don't over-flag** — minor issues stay 🟢, not everything is 🔴
3. **Provide context** — explain why terms are fine
4. **Save negotiation capital** — push back only on truly problematic terms

## Signs of a Balanced Agreement

- Mutual obligations (indemnification, confidentiality, termination)
- 12-month liability cap (market standard for SaaS)
- 60-90 day notice periods
- Clear data ownership and export rights
- Meaningful SLA with actual remedies
- Price increase caps
- Neither party has dramatically more power

Github ReposUpdated 4h agoRank 70

AionUi

Free, local, open-source 24/7 Cowork app and OpenClaw for Gemini CLI, Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, Qwen Code, Goose CLI, Auggie, and more | 🌟 Star if you like it!

MCPOPENCLAW

Github ReposUpdated 6mo agoRank 70

activepieces

AI Agents & MCPs & AI Workflow Automation • (~400 MCP servers for AI agents) • AI Automation / AI Agent with MCPs • AI Workflows & AI Agents • MCPs for AI Agents

OPENCLAW

Github ReposUpdated 6mo agoRank 70

cherry-studio

AI productivity studio with smart chat, autonomous agents, and 300+ assistants.