mcpField
L
law-contract

law-contract

github.com/asgard-ai-platformOther24356 installsUpdated 21w ago
Repository

About law-contract

An educational contract-review skill for identifying formation requirements, essential clauses, and common risks. It provides a structured review process, not legal advice; specific matters should be taken to a qualified attorney.

Key features

  1. 01Check four formation elements
  2. 02Review essential contract clauses
  3. 03Flag common clause risks
  4. 04Follow a structured review process
  5. 05Consult Taiwan-law references

Use cases

  1. 01Review a SaaS service agreement
  2. 02Check renewal and termination terms
  3. 03Spot imbalanced liability and indemnity
  4. 04Explore Taiwan contract-law points

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/asgard-ai-platform/skills --skill law-contract

After installing, type/law-contractin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Bundled files

References and scripts installed along with SKILL.md.

examples/
sample_scenario.md
references/
contract-templates.md
taiwan-contract-law.md

Details

From the project README

Contract Analysis

Overview

Contract law governs enforceable agreements. This skill covers formation requirements, essential clauses, and common risk areas for business contracts. It is educational guidance, not legal advice — always consult a qualified attorney for specific situations.

Framework

IRON LAW: A Contract Requires Offer + Acceptance + Consideration + Legality

All four elements must be present for a valid contract. Missing any one
means no enforceable contract exists — regardless of how formal the document
looks. A signed document without consideration (exchange of value) is
not a contract.
Contract Formation
ElementDefinitionTest
OfferClear, definite proposal with intent to be boundWould a reasonable person understand this as a binding proposal?
AcceptanceUnqualified agreement to the offer's termsMirror image rule: acceptance must match the offer exactly
ConsiderationSomething of value exchanged by both partiesEach side gives up something (money, services, rights, promises)
LegalitySubject matter must be legal and parties must have capacityNo illegal purpose; parties must be competent adults or authorized entities
Essential Contract Clauses
ClausePurposeRed Flags
PartiesWho is boundIncorrect entity name, no authority to sign
Scope/SubjectWhat is being exchangedVague deliverables, undefined terms
Payment termsWhen and how payment occursNo payment schedule, no late payment consequences
Term & TerminationDuration and exit conditionsAuto-renewal without notice, no termination for cause
Liability & IndemnityWho bears riskUnlimited liability, one-sided indemnification
Confidentiality (NDA)Information protectionOverly broad definition, no time limit
IP ownershipWho owns created workAmbiguous ownership of work product
Non-competeRestrictions after terminationOverly broad scope/geography/duration
Dispute resolutionHow conflicts are resolvedForeign jurisdiction, mandatory arbitration without consent
Force majeureExcused performance for unforeseeable eventsToo narrow or too broad definition
Contract Review Steps
  1. Identify the parties: Who is agreeing? Are entity names correct?
  2. Understand the deal: What is each side giving and receiving?
  3. Check formation elements: Offer, acceptance, consideration, legality — all present?
  4. Review essential clauses: Use the table above as a checklist
  5. Flag risk areas: Unlimited liability, one-sided terms, vague scope, auto-renewal
  6. Check governing law: Which jurisdiction's law applies? Is the dispute resolution mechanism acceptable?

Output Format

# Contract Review: {Agreement Type}

## Parties
- Party A: {name, role}
- Party B: {name, role}

## Deal Summary
{What is being exchanged — in plain language}

## Clause Review
| Clause | Present? | Assessment | Risk Level |
|--------|---------|-----------|-----------|
| Scope | Y/N | {notes} | 🟢/🟡/🔴 |
| Payment | Y/N | ... | ... |
| Termination | Y/N | ... | ... |
| Liability | Y/N | ... | ... |
| IP | Y/N | ... | ... |
| Non-compete | Y/N | ... | ... |

## Red Flags
1. {specific concern with clause reference}

## Recommendations
1. {suggested modification}

Examples

Correct Application

Scenario: SaaS service agreement review

  • Red flag: "Vendor may modify pricing with 30 days' notice" → One-sided price change clause. Should be: pricing locked for contract term, changes only at renewal.
  • Red flag: "Client indemnifies Vendor against all claims" → One-sided indemnification. Should be mutual.
  • Missing: No SLA (service level agreement) defined → No recourse if service goes down. Recommend adding uptime commitment with credits ✓
Incorrect Application
  • "This contract looks fine because both parties signed it" → Signature doesn't make every clause fair or enforceable. Must review individual clause terms. A signed contract with an unconscionable clause may still be challenged.

Gotchas

  • "Standard contract" doesn't mean fair: Vendor-drafted "standard" contracts are drafted in the vendor's favor. Everything is negotiable.
  • Taiwan-specific: Taiwan's Civil Code governs contracts. Key differences from common law: no consideration requirement (promise for promise is sufficient), mandatory provisions in certain contract types (labor, consumer).
  • Auto-renewal traps: Many contracts auto-renew unless notice is given 30-90 days before expiry. Calendar the notice deadline.
  • This skill is NOT legal advice: It provides educational analysis of contract concepts. Always consult a licensed attorney for binding legal decisions.

References

  • For Taiwan-specific contract law (Civil Code), see references/taiwan-contract-law.md
  • For common contract templates, see references/contract-templates.md

Comments

Markdown supported