review-contract
對照談判 playbook 審閱合約，標出偏離並產生 redline
中文翻譯
--- name: review-contract description: 對照組織的談判 playbook 審閱合約：標出偏離之處、產生 redline、提供對業務的影響分析。在審閱廠商或客戶合約、需要對照標準立場逐條分析，或要準備附有優先順序 redline 和備援立場的談判策略時使用。 argument-hint: "<contract file or text>" --- # /review-contract -- 對照 Playbook 審閱合約 > 如果看到不認識的 placeholder，或需要確認目前連接了哪些工具，請看 [CONNECTORS.md](../../CONNECTORS.md)。 對照組織的談判 playbook 審閱合約。分析每一條條款、標出偏離之處、產生 redline 建議，並提供對業務的影響分析。 **重要**：你協助法務工作流程，但不提供法律意見。所有分析在被依賴之前，都應該由具資格的法律專業人員審閱。 ## 呼叫方式 ``` /review-contract <contract file or URL> ``` 審閱這份合約：@$1 ## 工作流程 ### Step 1：接收合約 接受以下任何格式的合約： - **檔案上傳**：PDF、DOCX 或其他文件格式 - **URL**：連到你的 CLM、雲端儲存（例如 Box、Egnyte、SharePoint）或其他文件系統裡的合約 - **貼上的文字**：直接貼進對話裡的合約文字 如果沒有提供合約，提示使用者提供一份。 ### Step 2：蒐集脈絡 開始審閱之前，先向使用者詢問脈絡： 1. **你是哪一方？**（vendor/supplier、customer/buyer、licensor、licensee、partner，或其他） 2. **期限**：這需要在什麼時候定案？（影響議題的優先順序） 3. **重點領域**：有什麼特別的顧慮嗎？（例如「資料保護很關鍵」、「我們需要期限上的彈性」、「IP 歸屬是關鍵議題」） 4. **交易脈絡**：有任何相關的業務脈絡嗎？（例如交易規模、策略重要性、既有關係） 如果使用者只提供部分脈絡，就用手上有的繼續進行，並註明假設。 ### Step 3：載入 Playbook 在本機設定中尋找組織的合約審閱 playbook（例如 `legal.local.md` 或類似的設定檔）。 Playbook 應該定義： - **標準立場**：組織對每個主要條款類型偏好的條件 - **可接受範圍**：不需要 escalate 就可以同意的條件 - **Escalation 觸發條件**：需要資深法務審閱或外部律師介入的條件 **如果沒有設定 playbook：** - 告知使用者找不到 playbook - 提供兩個選項： 1. 協助使用者設定 playbook（帶著他們逐一定義重要條款的立場） 2. 以廣為接受的商業標準作為基準，進行通用審閱 - 如果採用通用審閱，要明確註明這次審閱是依據一般商業標準，不是組織的具體立場 ### Step 4：逐條分析 套用以下審閱流程： 1. **辨識合約類型**：SaaS 協議、專業服務、授權、合作、採購等。合約類型會影響哪些條款最關鍵。 2. **確認使用者的立場**：Vendor、customer、licensor、licensee、partner。這會從根本上改變分析（例如責任限制的保護對不同的當事方有利）。 3. **先讀完整份合約**再標記問題。條款彼此會互相作用（例如無上限的補償條款，可能被寬鬆的責任限制部分抵銷）。 4. **對照 playbook 的立場分析每一條重要條款**。 5. **整體看待合約**：整體的風險分配和商業條款是否平衡？ 系統性地分析合約，至少涵蓋： | 條款類別 | 主要審閱重點 | |----------------|-------------------| | **Limitation of Liability（責任限制）** | 上限金額、例外、雙向對單向、間接損害 | | **Indemnification（補償）** | 範圍、雙向對單向、上限、IP 侵權、資料外洩 | | **IP Ownership（智慧財產權歸屬）** | 既有 IP、開發產生的 IP、職務著作、授權範圍、轉讓 | | **Data Protection（資料保護）** | DPA 要求、處理條款、sub-processor、外洩通知、跨境傳輸 | | **Confidentiality（保密）** | 範圍、期限、例外、返還／銷毀義務 | | **Representations & Warranties（聲明與保證）** | 範圍、免責聲明、存續期間 | | **Term & Termination（期限與終止）** | 期間、續約、為方便而終止、因事由終止、收尾 | | **Governing Law & Dispute Resolution（準據法與爭議解決）** | 管轄、審理地、仲裁對訴訟 | | **Insurance（保險）** | 投保要求、最低額度、投保證明 | | **Assignment（轉讓）** | 同意要求、控制權變更、例外 | | **Force Majeure（不可抗力）** | 範圍、通知、終止權 | | **Payment Terms（付款條件）** | 付款天數、逾期費用、稅、價格調漲 | 針對每一條條款，對照 playbook（或通用標準）評估，並註明它是有、沒有，還是不尋常。 #### 條款詳細指引 ##### Limitation of Liability（責任限制） **主要審閱要素：** - 上限金額（固定金額、費用的倍數，或無上限） - 上限是雙向的，還是對雙方適用不同 - 上限的例外（哪些責任是無上限的） - 是否排除間接、衍生、特別或懲罰性損害 - 排除是否為雙向 - 間接損害排除的例外 - 上限是每次請求、每年，還是總額適用 **常見問題：** - 上限被設在已付費用的一小部分（例如在低價值合約上設成「前 3 個月已付的費用」） - 有利於擬約方的不對稱例外 - 實質上讓上限失效的寬鬆例外（例如「任何違反第 X 條」，而第 X 條涵蓋了大部分義務） - 對一方的違約沒有間接損害排除 ##### Indemnification（補償） **主要審閱要素：** - 補償是雙向的還是單向的 - 範圍：什麼會觸發補償義務（IP 侵權、資料外洩、人身傷害、違反聲明與保證） - 補償是否有上限（通常受整體責任上限約束，有時則無上限） - 程序：通知要求、控制抗辯的權利、和解的權利 - 被補償方是否必須減損 - 補償與責任限制條款之間的關係 **常見問題：** - 雙方都有貢獻 IP 時，卻是單向的 IP 侵權補償 - 對「任何違約」的補償（太寬；實質上把責任上限變成無上限的責任） - 沒有控制請求抗辯的權利 - 補償義務在終止後無限期存續 ##### Intellectual Property（智慧財產權） **主要審閱要素：** - 既有 IP 的歸屬（各方應保有自己的） - 合作期間開發出的 IP 的歸屬 - 職務著作條款及其範圍 - 授權範圍：範疇、排他性、地域、再授權的權利 - 開源的考量 - 回饋條款（對建議或改進的授權） **常見問題：** - 寬鬆的 IP 轉讓，可能涵蓋到客戶的既有 IP - 職務著作條款延伸到交付物之外 - 不受限的回饋條款，授予永久、不可撤銷的授權 - 授權範圍比商業關係所需要的更廣 ##### Data Protection（資料保護） **主要審閱要素：** - 是否需要資料處理協議／附錄（DPA） - 資料控制者 vs. 資料處理者的分類 - Sub-processor 的權利和通知義務 - 資料外洩通知的時限（GDPR 為 72 小時） - 跨境資料傳輸機制（SCC、充分性認定、具約束力的企業守則） - 終止時的資料刪除或返還義務 - 資料安全要求和稽核權 - 資料處理的目的限制 **常見問題：** - 處理個人資料卻沒有 DPA - 對 sub-processor 的概括授權，沒有通知 - 外洩通知時限比法規要求更長 - 資料跨國流動時沒有跨境傳輸的保護 - 資料刪除條款不足 ##### Term and Termination（期限與終止） **主要審閱要素：** - 初始期間和續約期間 - 自動續約條款和通知期 - 為方便而終止：能不能？通知期？提前終止費用？ - 因事由終止：補正期？什麼構成事由？ - 終止的效果：資料返還、過渡協助、存續條款 - 收尾期間和義務 **常見問題：** - 初始期間很長，又沒有為方便而終止 - 自動續約的通知期很短（例如年度續約只有 30 天通知） - 因事由終止沒有補正期 - 過渡協助條款不足 - 存續條款實質上讓協議無限期延續 ##### Governing Law and Dispute Resolution（準據法與爭議解決） **主要審閱要素：** - 準據法的選擇（管轄法域） - 爭議解決機制（訴訟、仲裁、先調解） - 訴訟的審理地與管轄 - 仲裁規則和仲裁地（如果是仲裁） - 放棄陪審團審判 - 放棄集體訴訟 - 勝訴方律師費 **常見問題：** - 不利的管轄（不尋常或偏遠的審理地） - 強制仲裁，且規則對擬約方有利 - 放棄陪審團審判卻沒有相應的保護 - 在正式爭議解決之前沒有 escalation 流程 ### Step 5：標出偏離 用三級制分類每一個偏離 playbook 之處： #### GREEN -- 可接受 條款符合或優於組織的標準立場。商業上合理、也不會實質增加風險的小幅差異。 **範例：** - 責任上限為 18 個月的費用，而標準為 12 個月（對客戶更有利） - 雙向 NDA 期限 2 年，而標準為 3 年（較短但合理） - 準據法在成熟的商業法域，且接近偏好的法域 **動作**：註記讓大家知道。不需要談判。 #### YELLOW -- 談判 條款超出標準立場，但在可談判的範圍內。這個條件在市場上很常見，只是不是組織的偏好。需要注意，也很可能要談判，但不需要 escalate。 **範例：** - 責任上限為 6 個月的費用，而標準為 12 個月（低於標準但可談） - IP 侵權為單向補償，而標準為雙向（市場上常見的立場，但不是偏好） - 自動續約的通知期為 60 天，而標準為 90 天 - 準據法在可接受但非偏好的法域 **動作**：產生具體的 redline 文字。提供備援立場。估計照單全收對比談判的業務影響。 - **包含**：把條件拉回標準立場的具體 redline 文字 - **包含**：對方反彈時的備援立場 - **包含**：照單全收對比談判的業務影響 #### RED -- Escalate 條款超出可接受範圍、觸發了已定義的 escalation 條件，或構成重大風險。需要資深法務審閱、外部律師介入，或業務決策者簽核。 **範例：** - 無上限的責任，或根本沒有責任限制條款 - 單向、範圍寬鬆且無上限的補償 - 轉讓既有 IP - 處理個人資料卻不提供 DPA - 不合理的競業禁止或排他條款 - 在有問題的法域，搭配強制仲裁的準據法 **動作**：說明具體風險。提供市場標準的替代文字。估計風險敞口。建議 escalation 路徑。 - **包含**：為什麼這是 RED flag（具體風險） - **包含**：標準的市場立場長什麼樣 - **包含**：業務影響和潛在的風險敞口 - **包含**：建議的 escalation 路徑 ### Step 6：產生 Redline 建議 對每一個 YELLOW 和 RED 的偏離，提供： - **目前文字**：引用相關的合約文字 - **建議的 redline**：具體的替代文字 - **理由**：簡短說明，適合分享給對方 - **優先順序**：這在談判中是必要條件還是加分條件 #### Redline 產生的最佳實踐 產生 redline 建議時： 1. **要具體**：提供確切的文字，不是模糊的指引。Redline 應該可以直接插入。 2. **要平衡**：提出在關鍵點上堅定、但商業上合理的文字。過度強硬的 redline 會拖慢談判。 3. **解釋理由**：包含簡短、專業、適合分享給對方律師的理由。 4. **提供備援立場**：對 YELLOW 項目，包含主要要求被拒絕時的備援立場。 5. **排優先順序**：不是所有 redline 都一樣重要。標明哪些是必要條件、哪些是加分條件。 6. **考慮關係**：依這是新廠商、策略夥伴還是大宗商品供應商，調整語氣和做法。 #### Redline 格式 每一個 redline： ``` **Clause**: [條文編號與條款名稱] **Current language**: "[合約的確切引文]" **Proposed redline**: "[具體的替代文字，新增處用粗體、刪除處概念上用刪除線]" **Rationale**: [1 到 2 句話說明原因，適合對外分享] **Priority**: [Must-have / Should-have / Nice-to-have] **Fallback**: [主要 redline 被拒絕時的替代立場] ``` ### Step 7：業務影響摘要 提供一個摘要段落，涵蓋： - **整體風險評估**：合約風險概況的高層次看法 - **前 3 個議題**：最重要、要處理的項目 - **談判策略**：建議的做法（先談哪些議題、要讓步什麼） - **時程考量**：任何影響談判做法的急迫因素 #### 談判優先順序框架 呈現 redline 時，依談判優先順序整理： **Tier 1：Must-Haves（破局條件）** 沒有解決，組織就無法繼續的議題： - 無上限或實質上不足的責任保護 - 受規管資料缺少資料保護要求 - 可能危及核心資產的 IP 條款 - 與法規義務衝突的條件 **Tier 2：Should-Haves（強烈偏好）** 實質影響風險、但有談判空間的議題： - 範圍內的責任上限調整 - 補償的範圍和雙向性 - 終止的彈性 - 稽核與合規權利 **Tier 3：Nice-to-Haves（可讓步的候選）** 能改善立場、但可以策略性讓步的議題： - 偏好的準據法（如果替代方案可接受） - 通知期偏好 - 次要的定義改善 - 保險證明的要求 **談判策略**：先談 Tier 1 的項目。用 Tier 3 的讓步換取 Tier 2 的勝利。沒有 escalate 就絕對不要在 Tier 1 讓步。 ### Step 8：CLM 路由（如果有連接） 如果有透過 MCP 連接合約生命週期管理（CLM）系統： - 依合約類型和風險等級，建議適當的核准流程 - 建議正確的路由路徑（例如標準核准、資深法務、外部律師） - 註明依合約金額或風險旗標所需要的任何核准 如果沒有連接 CLM，跳過這個步驟。 ## 輸出格式 輸出的結構： ``` ## Contract Review Summary **Document**: [合約名稱／識別碼] **Parties**: [當事方名稱與角色] **Your Side**: [vendor/customer/etc.] **Deadline**: [如果有提供] **Review Basis**: [Playbook / Generic Standards] ## Key Findings [前 3 到 5 個議題，附嚴重程度旗標] ## Clause-by-Clause Analysis ### [條款類別] -- [GREEN/YELLOW/RED] **Contract says**: [條文摘要] **Playbook position**: [你的標準] **Deviation**: [差距描述] **Business impact**: [這在實務上代表什麼] **Redline suggestion**: [具體文字，如果是 YELLOW 或 RED] [對每個重要條款重複] ## Negotiation Strategy [建議做法、優先順序、可讓步的候選] ## Next Steps [要採取的具體行動] ``` ## 備註 - 如果合約是英文以外的語言，要註明，並詢問使用者是否要翻譯，或用原文語言審閱 - 對很長的合約（50 頁以上），提議先聚焦在最關鍵的段落，再做完整審閱 - 一定要提醒使用者，這份分析在被用來做法律決定之前，應該先由具資格的法律顧問審閱
英文原文
--- name: review-contract description: Review a contract against your organization's negotiation playbook — flag deviations, generate redlines, provide business impact analysis. Use when reviewing vendor or customer agreements, when you need clause-by-clause analysis against standard positions, or when preparing a negotiation strategy with prioritized redlines and fallback positions. argument-hint: "<contract file or text>" --- # /review-contract -- Contract Review Against Playbook > If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see [CONNECTORS.md](../../CONNECTORS.md). Review a contract against your organization's negotiation playbook. Analyze each clause, flag deviations, generate redline suggestions, and provide business impact analysis. **Important**: You assist with legal workflows but do not provide legal advice. All analysis should be reviewed by qualified legal professionals before being relied upon. ## Invocation ``` /review-contract <contract file or URL> ``` Review the contract: @$1 ## Workflow ### Step 1: Accept the Contract Accept the contract in any of these formats: - **File upload**: PDF, DOCX, or other document format - **URL**: Link to a contract in your CLM, cloud storage (e.g., Box, Egnyte, SharePoint), or other document system - **Pasted text**: Contract text pasted directly into the conversation If no contract is provided, prompt the user to supply one. ### Step 2: Gather Context Ask the user for context before beginning the review: 1. **Which side are you on?** (vendor/supplier, customer/buyer, licensor, licensee, partner -- or other) 2. **Deadline**: When does this need to be finalized? (Affects prioritization of issues) 3. **Focus areas**: Any specific concerns? (e.g., "data protection is critical", "we need flexibility on term", "IP ownership is the key issue") 4. **Deal context**: Any relevant business context? (e.g., deal size, strategic importance, existing relationship) If the user provides partial context, proceed with what you have and note assumptions. ### Step 3: Load the Playbook Look for the organization's contract review playbook in local settings (e.g., `legal.local.md` or similar configuration files). The playbook should define: - **Standard positions**: The organization's preferred terms for each major clause type - **Acceptable ranges**: Terms that can be agreed to without escalation - **Escalation triggers**: Terms that require senior counsel review or outside counsel involvement **If no playbook is configured:** - Inform the user that no playbook was found - Offer two options: 1. Help the user set up their playbook (walk through defining positions for key clauses) 2. Proceed with a generic review using widely-accepted commercial standards as the baseline - If proceeding generically, clearly note that the review is based on general commercial standards, not the organization's specific positions ### Step 4: Clause-by-Clause Analysis Apply the following review process: 1. **Identify the contract type**: SaaS agreement, professional services, license, partnership, procurement, etc. The contract type affects which clauses are most material. 2. **Determine the user's side**: Vendor, customer, licensor, licensee, partner. This fundamentally changes the analysis (e.g., limitation of liability protections favor different parties). 3. **Read the entire contract** before flagging issues. Clauses interact with each other (e.g., an uncapped indemnity may be partially mitigated by a broad limitation of liability). 4. **Analyze each material clause** against the playbook position. 5. **Consider the contract holistically**: Are the overall risk allocation and commercial terms balanced? Analyze the contract systematically, covering at minimum: | Clause Category | Key Review Points | |----------------|-------------------| | **Limitation of Liability** | Cap amount, carveouts, mutual vs. unilateral, consequential damages | | **Indemnification** | Scope, mutual vs. unilateral, cap, IP infringement, data breach | | **IP Ownership** | Pre-existing IP, developed IP, work-for-hire, license grants, assignment | | **Data Protection** | DPA requirement, processing terms, sub-processors, breach notification, cross-border transfers | | **Confidentiality** | Scope, term, carveouts, return/destruction obligations | | **Representations & Warranties** | Scope, disclaimers, survival period | | **Term & Termination** | Duration, renewal, termination for convenience, termination for cause, wind-down | | **Governing Law & Dispute Resolution** | Jurisdiction, venue, arbitration vs. litigation | | **Insurance** | Coverage requirements, minimums, evidence of coverage | | **Assignment** | Consent requirements, change of control, exceptions | | **Force Majeure** | Scope, notification, termination rights | | **Payment Terms** | Net terms, late fees, taxes, price escalation | For each clause, assess against the playbook (or generic standards) and note whether it is present, absent, or unusual. #### Detailed Clause Guidance ##### Limitation of Liability **Key elements to review:** - Cap amount (fixed dollar amount, multiple of fees, or uncapped) - Whether the cap is mutual or applies differently to each party - Carveouts from the cap (what liabilities are uncapped) - Whether consequential, indirect, special, or punitive damages are excluded - Whether the exclusion is mutual - Carveouts from the consequential damages exclusion - Whether the cap applies per-claim, per-year, or aggregate **Common issues:** - Cap set at a fraction of fees paid (e.g., "fees paid in the prior 3 months" on a low-value contract) - Asymmetric carveouts favoring the drafter - Broad carveouts that effectively eliminate the cap (e.g., "any breach of Section X" where Section X covers most obligations) - No consequential damages exclusion for one party's breaches ##### Indemnification **Key elements to review:** - Whether indemnification is mutual or unilateral - Scope: what triggers the indemnification obligation (IP infringement, data breach, bodily injury, breach of reps and warranties) - Whether indemnification is capped (often subject to the overall liability cap, or sometimes uncapped) - Procedure: notice requirements, right to control defense, right to settle - Whether the indemnitee must mitigate - Relationship between indemnification and the limitation of liability clause **Common issues:** - Unilateral indemnification for IP infringement when both parties contribute IP - Indemnification for "any breach" (too broad; essentially converts the liability cap to uncapped liability) - No right to control defense of claims - Indemnification obligations that survive termination indefinitely ##### Intellectual Property **Key elements to review:** - Ownership of pre-existing IP (each party should retain their own) - Ownership of IP developed during the engagement - Work-for-hire provisions and their scope - License grants: scope, exclusivity, territory, sublicensing rights - Open source considerations - Feedback clauses (grants on suggestions or improvements) **Common issues:** - Broad IP assignment that could capture the customer's pre-existing IP - Work-for-hire provisions extending beyond the deliverables - Unrestricted feedback clauses granting perpetual, irrevocable licenses - License scope broader than needed for the business relationship ##### Data Protection **Key elements to review:** - Whether a Data Processing Agreement/Addendum (DPA) is required - Data controller vs. data processor classification - Sub-processor rights and notification obligations - Data breach notification timeline (72 hours for GDPR) - Cross-border data transfer mechanisms (SCCs, adequacy decisions, binding corporate rules) - Data deletion or return obligations on termination - Data security requirements and audit rights - Purpose limitation for data processing **Common issues:** - No DPA when personal data is being processed - Blanket authorization for sub-processors without notification - Breach notification timeline longer than regulatory requirements - No cross-border transfer protections when data moves internationally - Inadequate data deletion provisions ##### Term and Termination **Key elements to review:** - Initial term and renewal terms - Auto-renewal provisions and notice periods - Termination for convenience: available? notice period? early termination fees? - Termination for cause: cure period? what constitutes cause? - Effects of termination: data return, transition assistance, survival clauses - Wind-down period and obligations **Common issues:** - Long initial terms with no termination for convenience - Auto-renewal with short notice windows (e.g., 30-day notice for annual renewal) - No cure period for termination for cause - Inadequate transition assistance provisions - Survival clauses that effectively extend the agreement indefinitely ##### Governing Law and Dispute Resolution **Key elements to review:** - Choice of law (governing jurisdiction) - Dispute resolution mechanism (litigation, arbitration, mediation first) - Venue and jurisdiction for litigation - Arbitration rules and seat (if arbitration) - Jury waiver - Class action waiver - Prevailing party attorney's fees **Common issues:** - Unfavorable jurisdiction (unusual or remote venue) - Mandatory arbitration with rules favorable to the drafter - Waiver of jury trial without corresponding protections - No escalation process before formal dispute resolution ### Step 5: Flag Deviations Classify each deviation from the playbook using a three-tier system: #### GREEN -- Acceptable The clause aligns with or is better than the organization's standard position. Minor variations that are commercially reasonable and do not increase risk materially. **Examples:** - Liability cap at 18 months of fees when standard is 12 months (better for the customer) - Mutual NDA term of 2 years when standard is 3 years (shorter but reasonable) - Governing law in a well-established commercial jurisdiction close to the preferred one **Action**: Note for awareness. No negotiation needed. #### YELLOW -- Negotiate The clause falls outside the standard position but within a negotiable range. The term is common in the market but not the organization's preference. Requires attention and likely negotiation, but not escalation. **Examples:** - Liability cap at 6 months of fees when standard is 12 months (below standard but negotiable) - Unilateral indemnification for IP infringement when standard is mutual (common market position but not preferred) - Auto-renewal with 60-day notice when standard is 90 days - Governing law in an acceptable but not preferred jurisdiction **Action**: Generate specific redline language. Provide fallback position. Estimate business impact of accepting vs. negotiating. - **Include**: Specific redline language to bring the term back to standard position - **Include**: Fallback position if the counterparty pushes back - **Include**: Business impact of accepting as-is vs. negotiating #### RED -- Escalate The clause falls outside acceptable range, triggers a defined escalation criterion, or poses material risk. Requires senior counsel review, outside counsel involvement, or business decision-maker sign-off. **Examples:** - Uncapped liability or no limitation of liability clause - Unilateral broad indemnification with no cap - IP assignment of pre-existing IP - No DPA offered when personal data is processed - Unreasonable non-compete or exclusivity provisions - Governing law in a problematic jurisdiction with mandatory arbitration **Action**: Explain the specific risk. Provide market-standard alternative language. Estimate exposure. Recommend escalation path. - **Include**: Why this is a RED flag (specific risk) - **Include**: What the standard market position looks like - **Include**: Business impact and potential exposure - **Include**: Recommended escalation path ### Step 6: Generate Redline Suggestions For each YELLOW and RED deviation, provide: - **Current language**: Quote the relevant contract text - **Suggested redline**: Specific alternative language - **Rationale**: Brief explanation suitable for sharing with the counterparty - **Priority**: Whether this is a must-have or nice-to-have in negotiation #### Redline Generation Best Practices When generating redline suggestions: 1. **Be specific**: Provide exact language, not vague guidance. The redline should be ready to insert. 2. **Be balanced**: Propose language that is firm on critical points but commercially reasonable. Overly aggressive redlines slow negotiations. 3. **Explain the rationale**: Include a brief, professional rationale suitable for sharing with the counterparty's counsel. 4. **Provide fallback positions**: For YELLOW items, include a fallback position if the primary ask is rejected. 5. **Prioritize**: Not all redlines are equal. Indicate which are must-haves and which are nice-to-haves. 6. **Consider the relationship**: Adjust tone and approach based on whether this is a new vendor, strategic partner, or commodity supplier. #### Redline Format For each redline: ``` **Clause**: [Section reference and clause name] **Current language**: "[exact quote from the contract]" **Proposed redline**: "[specific alternative language with additions in bold and deletions struck through conceptually]" **Rationale**: [1-2 sentences explaining why, suitable for external sharing] **Priority**: [Must-have / Should-have / Nice-to-have] **Fallback**: [Alternative position if primary redline is rejected] ``` ### Step 7: Business Impact Summary Provide a summary section covering: - **Overall risk assessment**: High-level view of the contract's risk profile - **Top 3 issues**: The most important items to address - **Negotiation strategy**: Recommended approach (which issues to lead with, what to concede) - **Timeline considerations**: Any urgency factors affecting the negotiation approach #### Negotiation Priority Framework When presenting redlines, organize by negotiation priority: **Tier 1 -- Must-Haves (Deal Breakers)** Issues where the organization cannot proceed without resolution: - Uncapped or materially insufficient liability protections - Missing data protection requirements for regulated data - IP provisions that could jeopardize core assets - Terms that conflict with regulatory obligations **Tier 2 -- Should-Haves (Strong Preferences)** Issues that materially affect risk but have negotiation room: - Liability cap adjustments within range - Indemnification scope and mutuality - Termination flexibility - Audit and compliance rights **Tier 3 -- Nice-to-Haves (Concession Candidates)** Issues that improve the position but can be conceded strategically: - Preferred governing law (if alternative is acceptable) - Notice period preferences - Minor definitional improvements - Insurance certificate requirements **Negotiation strategy**: Lead with Tier 1 items. Trade Tier 3 concessions to secure Tier 2 wins. Never concede on Tier 1 without escalation. ### Step 8: CLM Routing (If Connected) If a Contract Lifecycle Management system is connected via MCP: - Recommend the appropriate approval workflow based on contract type and risk level - Suggest the correct routing path (e.g., standard approval, senior counsel, outside counsel) - Note any required approvals based on contract value or risk flags If no CLM is connected, skip this step. ## Output Format Structure the output as: ``` ## Contract Review Summary **Document**: [contract name/identifier] **Parties**: [party names and roles] **Your Side**: [vendor/customer/etc.] **Deadline**: [if provided] **Review Basis**: [Playbook / Generic Standards] ## Key Findings [Top 3-5 issues with severity flags] ## Clause-by-Clause Analysis ### [Clause Category] -- [GREEN/YELLOW/RED] **Contract says**: [summary of the provision] **Playbook position**: [your standard] **Deviation**: [description of gap] **Business impact**: [what this means practically] **Redline suggestion**: [specific language, if YELLOW or RED] [Repeat for each major clause] ## Negotiation Strategy [Recommended approach, priorities, concession candidates] ## Next Steps [Specific actions to take] ``` ## Notes - If the contract is in a language other than English, note this and ask if the user wants a translation or review in the original language - For very long contracts (50+ pages), offer to focus on the most material sections first and then do a complete review - Always remind the user that this analysis should be reviewed by qualified legal counsel before being relied upon for legal decisions