triage-nda
快速篩查 NDA，分成 GREEN、YELLOW、RED 決定要不要送法務
中文翻譯
--- name: triage-nda description: 快速對收到的 NDA 做分流，分成 GREEN（標準核准）、YELLOW（需法務審閱）或 RED（需完整法務審查）。業務或 BD 送來新的 NDA、要篩查夾帶的禁止招攬或競業禁止條款、或缺少例外條款，或要判斷 NDA 能不能依標準授權簽署時使用。 argument-hint: "<NDA 檔案或文字>" --- # /triage-nda -- NDA 預先篩查 > 如果看到不認識的 placeholder，或想確認目前連了哪些工具，請看 [CONNECTORS.md](../../CONNECTORS.md)。 對這份 NDA 做 triage：@$1 依標準篩查準則，快速對收到的 NDA 做 triage。把 NDA 分類以便轉派：標準核准、法務審閱，或完整法務審查。 **重要**：你協助法務工作流程，但不提供法律意見。所有分析在被採信之前，都必須由合格的法律專業人員審閱。 ## 呼叫方式 ``` /triage-nda ``` ## 工作流程 ### 步驟 1：接收 NDA 接受任何格式的 NDA： - **上傳檔案**：PDF、DOCX 或其他文件格式 - **URL**：文件系統裡的 NDA 連結 - **貼上的文字**：直接貼上的 NDA 內文 如果沒有提供 NDA，請使用者提供。 ### 步驟 2：載入 NDA Playbook 到本地設定（例如 `legal.local.md`）找 NDA 篩查準則。 NDA playbook 應該定義： - 雙向 vs. 單向的要求 - 可接受的期間長度 - 必備的例外條款 - 禁止的條款 - 組織特有的要求 **如果沒有設定 NDA playbook：** - 用合理的市場標準預設值繼續 - 清楚註明正在使用預設值 - 套用的預設值： - 要求雙向義務（除非組織只是揭露方） - 期間：標準為 2-3 年，營業秘密最長 5 年 - 必備的標準例外條款：獨立開發、公開可得、合法從第三方取得、法律要求 - 不得有禁止招攬或競業禁止條款 - 不得有 residuals 條款（若有，範圍必須很窄） - 準據法在合理的商業司法管轄區 ### 步驟 3：快速篩查 逐項、有系統地依每個篩查準則評估這份 NDA。 #### 1. 合約結構 - [ ] **類型已確認**：雙向 NDA、單向（揭露方），或單向（接收方） - [ ] **符合情境**：NDA 類型適合這段業務關係嗎？（例如探索性討論用雙向，單向揭露用單向） - [ ] **獨立合約**：確認 NDA 是獨立的合約，不是嵌在較大商業合約裡的保密條款 #### 2. 機密資訊的定義 - [ ] **範圍合理**：不過度寬泛（避免「任何種類的所有資訊，不論是否標示為機密」） - [ ] **標示要求**：如果要求標示，做得到嗎？（口頭揭露後 30 天內以書面標示是標準做法） - [ ] **有排除條款**：已定義標準排除事項（見下方「標準例外條款」） - [ ] **沒有問題的納入項目**：沒有把公開可得的資訊或獨立開發的資料定義為機密 #### 3. 接收方的義務 - [ ] **注意標準**：合理注意，或至少與保護自己機密資訊相同的注意程度 - [ ] **使用限制**：限於所述目的 - [ ] **揭露限制**：限於有必要知道、且受類似義務拘束的人 - [ ] **沒有過重的義務**：沒有不切實際的要求（例如所有通訊都要加密、維護實體紀錄） #### 4. 標準例外條款 以下例外條款應該全部都有： - [ ] **公眾知悉**：接收方沒有過失而已經或變成公開可得的資訊 - [ ] **先前持有**：接收方在揭露前就已經知道的資訊 - [ ] **獨立開發**：沒有使用或參考機密資訊而獨立開發出來的資訊 - [ ] **第三方取得**：合法從第三方取得、沒有限制的資訊 - [ ] **法律強制**：法律、法規或法律程序要求時有權揭露（法律允許的話，須通知揭露方） #### 5. 允許的揭露對象 - [ ] **員工**：可以告知有必要知道的員工 - [ ] **承包商/顧問**：可以在類似保密義務下告知承包商、顧問和專業諮詢人員 - [ ] **關係企業**：可以告知關係企業（為了業務目的有需要的話） - [ ] **法律/法規**：法律或法規要求時可以揭露 #### 6. 期間與存續 - [ ] **合約期間**：對這段業務關係來說期間合理（1-3 年是標準） - [ ] **保密義務存續**：終止後義務在合理期間內繼續有效（2-5 年是標準，營業秘密可以更長） - [ ] **不是永久**：避免無限期或永久的保密義務（例外：營業秘密可能需要更長的保護） #### 7. 返還與銷毀 - [ ] **觸發義務**：終止時或應要求時 - [ ] **範圍合理**：返還或銷毀機密資訊及所有副本 - [ ] **保留例外**：允許保留法律、法規或內部合規/備份政策要求的副本 - [ ] **證明**：銷毀證明是合理的，要求宣誓書就太重了 #### 8. 救濟 - [ ] **禁制令救濟**：承認違約可能造成無法彌補的損害、可能適用衡平救濟，是標準做法 - [ ] **沒有預先設定的賠償**：NDA 裡避免約定違約金條款 - [ ] **不偏向單方**：救濟條款對雙方一體適用（雙向 NDA 中） #### 9. 要標記的問題條款 - [ ] **沒有禁止招攬**：NDA 不該有禁止招攬員工的條款 - [ ] **沒有競業禁止**：NDA 不該有競業禁止條款 - [ ] **沒有排他性**：NDA 不該限制任何一方與他人進行類似的討論 - [ ] **沒有 standstill**：NDA 不該有 standstill 或類似的限制條款（M&A 情境除外） - [ ] **沒有 residuals 條款**（或範圍很窄）：如果有 residuals 條款，應限於個人在不借助輔助的記憶中保留的資訊，而且不得適用於營業秘密或專利資訊 - [ ] **沒有 IP 轉讓或授權**：NDA 不該授予任何智慧財產權 - [ ] **沒有稽核權**：在標準 NDA 中並不常見 #### 10. 準據法與管轄 - [ ] **合理的管轄區**：成熟的商業司法管轄區 - [ ] **一致**：準據法和管轄應該在相同或相關的司法管轄區 - [ ] **沒有強制仲裁**（標準 NDA 中）：NDA 爭議一般偏好訴訟 ### 步驟 4：分類 根據篩查結果，指定一個分類： #### GREEN -- 標準核准 以下**全部**都必須成立： - NDA 是雙向的（或方向適當的單向） - 所有標準例外條款都有 - 期間在標準範圍內（1-3 年，存續 2-5 年） - 沒有禁止招攬、競業禁止或排他性條款 - 沒有 residuals 條款，或 residuals 條款範圍很窄 - 準據法管轄區合理 - 標準救濟（沒有約定違約金） - 允許的揭露對象包括員工、承包商和顧問 - 返還/銷毀條款包含法律/合規的保留例外 - 機密資訊的定義範圍合理 **轉派**：依標準授權核准，不需要法務審閱。 - **動作**：依標準授權直接簽署 #### YELLOW -- 需要法務審閱 出現以下**一項或多項**，但 NDA 本質上沒有問題： - 機密資訊的定義比偏好的更寬，但不算不合理 - 期間比標準長，但在市場範圍內（例如合約期間 5 年、存續 7 年） - 缺少一項標準例外條款，可以輕易補上 - 有 residuals 條款，但範圍窄到只限於不借助輔助的記憶 - 準據法在可接受但非偏好的管轄區 - 雙向 NDA 中有輕微的不對稱（例如一方允許的揭露對象稍微更廣） - 有標示要求，但做得到 - 返還/銷毀沒有明確的保留例外（可能隱含存在，但應該補上） - 不尋常但無害的條款（例如有潛在違約時的通知義務） **轉派**：把具體問題標記後交給法務審閱。法務通常可以用小幅 redline 一次審閱就解決。 - **動作**：法務通常可以一次審閱就解決 #### RED -- 有重大問題 出現以下**一項或多項**： - **該雙向卻是單向**（或方向與關係不符） - **缺少關鍵例外條款**（尤其是獨立開發或法律強制） - NDA 裡夾帶**禁止招攬或競業禁止條款** - 沒有適當業務背景的**排他性或 standstill 條款** - **不合理的期間**（10 年以上，或沒有營業秘密理由卻是永久） - **過度寬泛的定義**，可能涵蓋公開資訊或獨立開發的資料 - **寬鬆的 residuals 條款**，實質上等於授權使用機密資訊 - NDA 裡藏著 **IP 轉讓或授權** - **約定違約金或懲罰性條款** - 範圍或通知要求不合理的**稽核權** - 有強制仲裁的**極不利管轄區** - **文件其實不是 NDA**（含有實質商業條款、排他性，或保密以外的其他義務） **轉派**：需要完整法務審查。不要簽。要談判、用組織的標準格式 NDA 反提案，或直接拒絕。 - **動作**：不要簽，需要談判或反提案 ### 步驟 5：產出 Triage 報告 輸出結構化報告： ``` ## NDA Triage Report **Classification**: [GREEN / YELLOW / RED] **Parties**: [party names] **Type**: [Mutual / Unilateral (disclosing) / Unilateral (receiving)] **Term**: [duration] **Governing Law**: [jurisdiction] **Review Basis**: [Playbook / Default Standards] ## Screening Results | Criterion | Status | Notes | |-----------|--------|-------| | Mutual Obligations | [PASS/FLAG/FAIL] | [details] | | Definition Scope | [PASS/FLAG/FAIL] | [details] | | Term | [PASS/FLAG/FAIL] | [details] | | Standard Carveouts | [PASS/FLAG/FAIL] | [details] | | [etc.] | | | ## Issues Found ### [Issue 1 -- YELLOW/RED] **What**: [description] **Risk**: [what could go wrong] **Suggested Fix**: [specific language or approach] [Repeat for each issue] ## Recommendation [Specific next step: approve, send for review with specific notes, or reject/counter] ## Next Steps 1. [Action item 1] 2. [Action item 2] ``` ### 步驟 6：轉派建議 依分類，建議適當的下一步： | 分類 | 建議動作 | 一般時程 | |---|---|---| | GREEN | 核准並依授權轉去簽署 | 當天 | | YELLOW | 送給指定審閱者，並標記具體問題 | 1-2 個工作天 | | RED | 請法務完整審查，準備反提案或標準格式 | 3-5 個工作天 | 對 YELLOW 和 RED 的分類： - 指出該審閱的具體人員或角色（如果組織有定義轉派規則） - 附上簡短的問題摘要，讓審閱者能快速掌握重點 - 如果組織有標準格式 NDA，對 RED 的 NDA 建議把它當反提案送出 ## 常見 NDA 問題與標準立場 ### 問題：機密資訊定義過度寬泛 **標準立場**：機密資訊應限於與所述目的相關而揭露的非公開資訊，並有明確的排除項目。 **Redline 做法**：把定義縮窄成有標示或指明為機密的資訊，或依資訊的性質和揭露情況，一般理性的人都會認為是機密的資訊。 ### 問題：缺少獨立開發例外條款 **標準立場**：必須包含例外條款，涵蓋沒有參考或使用揭露方機密資訊而獨立開發的資訊。 **缺少的風險**：可能引發主張，說內部開發的產品或功能源自對方的機密資訊。 **Redline 做法**：加上標準的獨立開發例外條款。 ### 問題：禁止招攬員工 **標準立場**：禁止招攬條款不屬於 NDA。它們適合放在僱傭合約、M&A 合約或特定的商業合約裡。 **Redline 做法**：整條刪掉。如果對方堅持，就限縮為針對性的招攬（不含一般招募），並設定短期限（12 個月）。 ### 問題：寬鬆的 Residuals 條款 **標準立場**：抗拒 residuals 條款。如果非要不可，限定為：(a) 有授權存取的個人在不借助輔助的記憶中保留的一般想法、概念、know-how 或技術；(b) 明確排除營業秘密和可取得專利的資訊；(c) 不授予任何 IP 授權。 **範圍過寬的風險**：實質上等於授權對方為任何目的使用揭露方的機密資訊。 ### 問題：永久的保密義務 **標準立場**：從揭露或終止起算 2-5 年，以較晚者為準。營業秘密可以在仍屬營業秘密期間內受保護。 **Redline 做法**：把永久義務換成明確的期間。提供營業秘密例外，讓符合資格的資訊享有更長的保護。 ## 備註 - 如果文件其實不是 NDA（例如標示為 NDA 但含有實質商業條款），立刻標記為 RED，並建議改做完整合約審查 - 對於屬於較大合約一部分的 NDA（例如 MSA 裡的保密條款），要註明較大的合約背景可能影響分析 - 一定要註明這只是篩查工具，使用者不確定的任何項目都應由法務審閱
英文原文
--- name: triage-nda description: Rapidly triage an incoming NDA and classify it as GREEN (standard approval), YELLOW (counsel review), or RED (full legal review). Use when a new NDA arrives from sales or business development, when screening for embedded non-solicits, non-competes, or missing carveouts, or when deciding whether an NDA can be signed under standard delegation. argument-hint: "<NDA file or text>" --- # /triage-nda -- NDA Pre-Screening > If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see [CONNECTORS.md](../../CONNECTORS.md). Triage the NDA: @$1 Rapidly triage incoming NDAs against standard screening criteria. Classify the NDA for routing: standard approval, counsel review, or full legal review. **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 ``` /triage-nda ``` ## Workflow ### Step 1: Accept the NDA Accept the NDA in any format: - **File upload**: PDF, DOCX, or other document format - **URL**: Link to the NDA in a document system - **Pasted text**: NDA text pasted directly If no NDA is provided, prompt the user to supply one. ### Step 2: Load NDA Playbook Look for NDA screening criteria in local settings (e.g., `legal.local.md`). The NDA playbook should define: - Mutual vs. unilateral requirements - Acceptable term lengths - Required carveouts - Prohibited provisions - Organization-specific requirements **If no NDA playbook is configured:** - Proceed with reasonable market-standard defaults - Note clearly that defaults are being used - Defaults applied: - Mutual obligations required (unless the organization is only disclosing) - Term: 2-3 years standard, up to 5 years for trade secrets - Standard carveouts required: independently developed, publicly available, rightfully received from third party, required by law - No non-solicitation or non-compete provisions - No residuals clause (or narrowly scoped if present) - Governing law in a reasonable commercial jurisdiction ### Step 3: Quick Screen Evaluate the NDA against each screening criterion systematically. #### 1. Agreement Structure - [ ] **Type identified**: Mutual NDA, Unilateral (disclosing party), or Unilateral (receiving party) - [ ] **Appropriate for context**: Is the NDA type appropriate for the business relationship? (e.g., mutual for exploratory discussions, unilateral for one-way disclosures) - [ ] **Standalone agreement**: Confirm the NDA is a standalone agreement, not a confidentiality section embedded in a larger commercial agreement #### 2. Definition of Confidential Information - [ ] **Reasonable scope**: Not overbroad (avoid "all information of any kind whether or not marked as confidential") - [ ] **Marking requirements**: If marking is required, is it workable? (Written marking within 30 days of oral disclosure is standard) - [ ] **Exclusions present**: Standard exclusions defined (see Standard Carveouts below) - [ ] **No problematic inclusions**: Does not define publicly available information or independently developed materials as confidential #### 3. Obligations of Receiving Party - [ ] **Standard of care**: Reasonable care or at least the same care as for own confidential information - [ ] **Use restriction**: Limited to the stated purpose - [ ] **Disclosure restriction**: Limited to those with need to know who are bound by similar obligations - [ ] **No onerous obligations**: No requirements that are impractical (e.g., encrypting all communications, maintaining physical logs) #### 4. Standard Carveouts All of the following carveouts should be present: - [ ] **Public knowledge**: Information that is or becomes publicly available through no fault of the receiving party - [ ] **Prior possession**: Information already known to the receiving party before disclosure - [ ] **Independent development**: Information independently developed without use of or reference to confidential information - [ ] **Third-party receipt**: Information rightfully received from a third party without restriction - [ ] **Legal compulsion**: Right to disclose when required by law, regulation, or legal process (with notice to the disclosing party where legally permitted) #### 5. Permitted Disclosures - [ ] **Employees**: Can share with employees who need to know - [ ] **Contractors/advisors**: Can share with contractors, advisors, and professional consultants under similar confidentiality obligations - [ ] **Affiliates**: Can share with affiliates (if needed for the business purpose) - [ ] **Legal/regulatory**: Can disclose as required by law or regulation #### 6. Term and Duration - [ ] **Agreement term**: Reasonable period for the business relationship (1-3 years is standard) - [ ] **Confidentiality survival**: Obligations survive for a reasonable period after termination (2-5 years is standard; trade secrets may be longer) - [ ] **Not perpetual**: Avoid indefinite or perpetual confidentiality obligations (exception: trade secrets, which may warrant longer protection) #### 7. Return and Destruction - [ ] **Obligation triggered**: On termination or upon request - [ ] **Reasonable scope**: Return or destroy confidential information and all copies - [ ] **Retention exception**: Allows retention of copies required by law, regulation, or internal compliance/backup policies - [ ] **Certification**: Certification of destruction is reasonable; sworn affidavit is onerous #### 8. Remedies - [ ] **Injunctive relief**: Acknowledgment that breach may cause irreparable harm and equitable relief may be appropriate is standard - [ ] **No pre-determined damages**: Avoid liquidated damages clauses in NDAs - [ ] **Not one-sided**: Remedies provisions apply equally to both parties (in mutual NDAs) #### 9. Problematic Provisions to Flag - [ ] **No non-solicitation**: NDA should not contain employee non-solicitation provisions - [ ] **No non-compete**: NDA should not contain non-compete provisions - [ ] **No exclusivity**: NDA should not restrict either party from entering similar discussions with others - [ ] **No standstill**: NDA should not contain standstill or similar restrictive provisions (unless M&A context) - [ ] **No residuals clause** (or narrowly scoped): If a residuals clause is present, it should be limited to information retained in unaided memory of individuals and should not apply to trade secrets or patented information - [ ] **No IP assignment or license**: NDA should not grant any intellectual property rights - [ ] **No audit rights**: Unusual in standard NDAs #### 10. Governing Law and Jurisdiction - [ ] **Reasonable jurisdiction**: A well-established commercial jurisdiction - [ ] **Consistent**: Governing law and jurisdiction should be in the same or related jurisdictions - [ ] **No mandatory arbitration** (in standard NDAs): Litigation is generally preferred for NDA disputes ### Step 4: Classify Based on the screening results, assign a classification: #### GREEN -- Standard Approval **All** of the following must be true: - NDA is mutual (or unilateral in the appropriate direction) - All standard carveouts are present - Term is within standard range (1-3 years, survival 2-5 years) - No non-solicitation, non-compete, or exclusivity provisions - No residuals clause, or residuals clause is narrowly scoped - Reasonable governing law jurisdiction - Standard remedies (no liquidated damages) - Permitted disclosures include employees, contractors, and advisors - Return/destruction provisions include retention exception for legal/compliance - Definition of confidential information is reasonably scoped **Routing**: Approve via standard delegation of authority. No counsel review required. - **Action**: Proceed to signature with standard delegation of authority #### YELLOW -- Counsel Review Needed **One or more** of the following are present, but the NDA is not fundamentally problematic: - Definition of confidential information is broader than preferred but not unreasonable - Term is longer than standard but within market range (e.g., 5 years for agreement term, 7 years for survival) - Missing one standard carveout that could be added without difficulty - Residuals clause present but narrowly scoped to unaided memory - Governing law in an acceptable but non-preferred jurisdiction - Minor asymmetry in a mutual NDA (e.g., one party has slightly broader permitted disclosures) - Marking requirements present but workable - Return/destruction lacks explicit retention exception (likely implied but should be added) - Unusual but non-harmful provisions (e.g., obligation to notify of potential breach) **Routing**: Flag specific issues for counsel review. Counsel can likely resolve with minor redlines in a single review pass. - **Action**: Counsel can likely resolve in a single review pass #### RED -- Significant Issues **One or more** of the following are present: - **Unilateral when mutual is required** (or wrong direction for the relationship) - **Missing critical carveouts** (especially independent development or legal compulsion) - **Non-solicitation or non-compete provisions** embedded in the NDA - **Exclusivity or standstill provisions** without appropriate business context - **Unreasonable term** (10+ years, or perpetual without trade secret justification) - **Overbroad definition** that could capture public information or independently developed materials - **Broad residuals clause** that effectively creates a license to use confidential information - **IP assignment or license grant** hidden in the NDA - **Liquidated damages or penalty provisions** - **Audit rights** without reasonable scope or notice requirements - **Highly unfavorable jurisdiction** with mandatory arbitration - **The document is not actually an NDA** (contains substantive commercial terms, exclusivity, or other obligations beyond confidentiality) **Routing**: Full legal review required. Do not sign. Requires negotiation, counterproposal with the organization's standard form NDA, or rejection. - **Action**: Do not sign; requires negotiation or counterproposal ### Step 5: Generate Triage Report Output a structured report: ``` ## NDA Triage Report **Classification**: [GREEN / YELLOW / RED] **Parties**: [party names] **Type**: [Mutual / Unilateral (disclosing) / Unilateral (receiving)] **Term**: [duration] **Governing Law**: [jurisdiction] **Review Basis**: [Playbook / Default Standards] ## Screening Results | Criterion | Status | Notes | |-----------|--------|-------| | Mutual Obligations | [PASS/FLAG/FAIL] | [details] | | Definition Scope | [PASS/FLAG/FAIL] | [details] | | Term | [PASS/FLAG/FAIL] | [details] | | Standard Carveouts | [PASS/FLAG/FAIL] | [details] | | [etc.] | | | ## Issues Found ### [Issue 1 -- YELLOW/RED] **What**: [description] **Risk**: [what could go wrong] **Suggested Fix**: [specific language or approach] [Repeat for each issue] ## Recommendation [Specific next step: approve, send for review with specific notes, or reject/counter] ## Next Steps 1. [Action item 1] 2. [Action item 2] ``` ### Step 6: Routing Suggestion Based on the classification, recommend the appropriate next step: | Classification | Recommended Action | Typical Timeline | |---|---|---| | GREEN | Approve and route for signature per delegation of authority | Same day | | YELLOW | Send to designated reviewer with specific issues flagged | 1-2 business days | | RED | Engage counsel for full review; prepare counterproposal or standard form | 3-5 business days | For YELLOW and RED classifications: - Identify the specific person or role that should review (if the organization has defined routing rules) - Include a brief summary of issues suitable for the reviewer to quickly understand the key points - If the organization has a standard form NDA, recommend sending it as a counterproposal for RED-classified NDAs ## Common NDA Issues and Standard Positions ### Issue: Overbroad Definition of Confidential Information **Standard position**: Confidential information should be limited to non-public information disclosed in connection with the stated purpose, with clear exclusions. **Redline approach**: Narrow the definition to information that is marked or identified as confidential, or that a reasonable person would understand to be confidential given the nature of the information and circumstances of disclosure. ### Issue: Missing Independent Development Carveout **Standard position**: Must include a carveout for information independently developed without reference to or use of the disclosing party's confidential information. **Risk if missing**: Could create claims that internally-developed products or features were derived from the counterparty's confidential information. **Redline approach**: Add standard independent development carveout. ### Issue: Non-Solicitation of Employees **Standard position**: Non-solicitation provisions do not belong in NDAs. They are appropriate in employment agreements, M&A agreements, or specific commercial agreements. **Redline approach**: Delete the provision entirely. If the counterparty insists, limit to targeted solicitation (not general recruitment) and set a short term (12 months). ### Issue: Broad Residuals Clause **Standard position**: Resist residuals clauses. If required, limit to: (a) general ideas, concepts, know-how, or techniques retained in the unaided memory of individuals who had authorized access; (b) explicitly exclude trade secrets and patentable information; (c) does not grant any IP license. **Risk if too broad**: Effectively grants a license to use the disclosing party's confidential information for any purpose. ### Issue: Perpetual Confidentiality Obligation **Standard position**: 2-5 years from disclosure or termination, whichever is later. Trade secrets may warrant protection for as long as they remain trade secrets. **Redline approach**: Replace perpetual obligation with a defined term. Offer a trade secret carveout for longer protection of qualifying information. ## Notes - If the document is not actually an NDA (e.g., it's labeled as an NDA but contains substantive commercial terms), flag this immediately as a RED and recommend full contract review instead - For NDAs that are part of a larger agreement (e.g., confidentiality section in an MSA), note that the broader agreement context may affect the analysis - Always note that this is a screening tool and counsel should review any items the user is uncertain about