nda-review-jamie-tso
Scannednpx machina-cli add skill lawvable/awesome-legal-skills/nda-review-jamie-tso --openclawNDA Review Playbook (Commercial, Jurisdiction-Agnostic)
Overview
| What this skill does | What it does not do |
|---|---|
| Reviews an NDA and outputs issues, risks, and suggested redlines | Provide jurisdiction-specific legal conclusions |
| Supports Recipient or Discloser perspectives (user-chosen) | Guarantee enforceability |
| Produces an executive summary + clause-by-clause markup guidance | Replace counsel for complex deals |
Scope limitation (important): this playbook supports one-way (unilateral) commercial NDAs only.
If the NDA is mutual, stop: this playbook is out of scope and you should escalate to counsel or use a separate mutual-NDA review approach.
Variation callouts appear throughout:
- M&A / Due diligence
- Employment / contractor
- Investor / VC
LEGAL DISCLAIMER
THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. This skill is provided for informational and educational purposes only. Laws vary by jurisdiction and individual circumstances, and only a licensed attorney can provide advice tailored to your specific situation. When the NDA is high-risk, high-value, cross-border, or otherwise sensitive, escalate to qualified counsel.
Remember: All outputs from this skill must be reviewed by a qualified legal professional before being used for any legal purposes.
Inputs to collect (ask before reviewing)
A. Role and deal context (required)
- Are we reviewing as Recipient (we receive confidential info) or Discloser (we disclose confidential info)?
- Confirm the NDA is one-way (unilateral). If it is mutual, stop: this playbook cannot be used.
- What is the purpose / permitted use (e.g., evaluation of partnership, vendor RFP, diligence)?
- What are the parties (legal names) and any affiliates that should be covered?
- What information types are expected (tech, pricing, customer data, product roadmap, source code)?
- Desired timeline: when do we need to sign?
B. Practical constraints (recommended)
- Do we need to share with affiliates, advisors, contractors, auditors, or potential acquirers?
- Will we need to export data across borders or store in cloud tools?
- Will any personal data be shared? If yes, are there separate data-processing terms?
Jurisdiction-agnostic note: avoid asserting “this clause is invalid” without the governing law details; focus on commercial risk, operational feasibility, and market norms.
Deliverables (output format)
Quick start (default output template)
ALWAYS output:
- Executive summary
- Clause-by-clause issue log (single table)
A. Executive summary (1 page)
- Party role (Recipient or Discloser) and confirmation it is one-way (unilateral)
- Top 5 negotiation points (ranked)
- “Sign as-is” / “Sign with changes” / “Escalate” recommendation
B. Clause-by-clause issue log (lawyer-style, thorough)
Use a single table so counsel and business owners can track issues, owners, and deadlines.
| Clause | Issue (1 line) | Risk (H/M/L) | Preferred redline | Fallback | Rationale (1–2 sentences) | Owner | Deadline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Definition | Overbroad; includes unmarked info with no reasonableness | ||||||
| Term & survival | Perpetual confidentiality for all information | ||||||
| Use restriction | Purpose too broad; blocks internal evaluation | ||||||
| Disclosures | Representatives undefined; strict liability | ||||||
| Return/destruction | No backup carve-out | ||||||
| Remedies | One-way fees + automatic injunction | ||||||
| Liability | Indemnity + unlimited consequential damages | ||||||
| Boilerplate | Assignment prohibits change of control |
Example (compact)
Executive summary (example skeleton):
- Role: Recipient (one-way NDA)
- Recommendation: Sign with changes
- Top 5 points: definition scope; term/survival; representatives; backup carve-out; remedies/fees
Issue log (example rows):
| Clause | Issue (1 line) | Risk (H/M/L) | Preferred redline | Fallback | Rationale (1–2 sentences) | Owner | Deadline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Term & survival | Perpetual confidentiality for all information | H | Add 2–5 year survival; trade secret carve-out only | 5-year survival for all | Reduces indefinite operational burden while protecting truly sensitive info | Legal | Before signature |
| Return/destruction | No backup carve-out | M | Add backup/legal hold exception + continued confidentiality | Allow retention in immutable backups only | Required for standard IT operations; avoids impossible compliance | Security + Legal | Before signature |
5-step workflow
Step 1 — Identify stance (Recipient vs Discloser)
- Confirm which side we are on for this specific NDA (titles are often misleading).
- Confirm the NDA is one-way (unilateral). If it is mutual, stop (out of scope).
Quick heuristic:
- If we are being asked to keep their info secret → we are Recipient.
- If we are sharing our sensitive info → we are Discloser (if the NDA is mutual, stop: out of scope).
Step 2 — Triage the NDA (fast risk scan)
Flag these immediately:
- Perpetual confidentiality for all information (no trade secret distinction)
- Residuals clause allowing use of “memory” or generalized knowledge
- Injunctive relief + attorneys’ fees one-way against Recipient
- Indemnity for breach or broad third-party claims
- No carve-outs for compelled disclosure or prior knowledge
- Overbroad definition: “all information, whether marked or not” with no reasonableness
- Affiliate coverage missing when we must share internally
If any are present and the NDA matters, proceed with full review and consider escalation.
Step 3 — Clause-by-clause review (use the reference modules)
Use these references while reviewing:
Step 4 — Draft redlines and negotiation positions
For each issue, produce:
- Preferred redline (best risk outcome)
- Fallback position (acceptable compromise)
- Rationale (1–2 sentences: business + operational feasibility)
- Owner (who needs to approve / negotiate: Legal, Sales, Security, Product)
- Deadline (by when the counterparty needs the change)
Negotiation discipline: do not propose 20 changes. Focus on the 5–10 that materially change risk.
Step 5 — Finalize the package
- Ensure consistency (definitions used the same way everywhere)
- Confirm operational feasibility (can we actually comply?)
- Re-scan the Step 2 triage list and ensure each flagged item is represented in the issue log
- Provide a short “what we changed and why” summary
Perspective-specific checklists
A. Recipient checklist (incoming NDA — typical case)
| Topic | Red flags | Typical ask |
|---|---|---|
| Definition of Confidential Information | Overbroad; includes independently developed info; no marking/identification standard | Add reasonableness + identification standard; add exclusions |
| Purpose / Permitted Use | Any use restriction beyond evaluation; bans on internal sharing | Tie to stated purpose; allow internal need-to-know |
| Representatives | We are liable for any representative breach without control | Limit to those under written confidentiality; commercially reasonable care |
| Term & survival | Perpetual for everything; unclear start date | Fixed term; longer only for trade secrets |
| Return / destruction | Requires deletion of backups immediately | Add practical backup carve-out |
| Remedies | One-way fees + broad injunction language | Mutuality or reasonableness; clarify equitable relief scope |
| Liability / indemnity | Indemnity; unlimited damages; consequential damages | Cap or exclude categories; remove indemnity |
| Residuals | Allows use of “retained in memory” | Delete or narrow heavily |
M&A / Due diligence: ensure diligence sharing (advisors, financing, affiliates) is permitted and that data room exports/notes are covered.
B. Discloser checklist (when we are sharing sensitive info)
| Topic | Red flags | Typical ask |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Too narrow; requires marking only; excludes oral disclosures | Add oral confirmation mechanism; broaden categories reasonably |
| Security standard | Only “reasonable” with no baseline | Add minimum safeguards, or align with internal policy |
| Exclusions | Too broad (e.g., “independently developed” with no proof) | Require written evidence of prior knowledge/independent development |
| Term & survival | Too short | Extend for sensitive categories; trade secret survival |
| Remedies | No equitable relief, no fees | Add equitable relief and/or fees (carefully) |
Investor / VC: watch for standstill, solicitation, and “no contact” provisions—these are not standard in plain NDAs and may need separate agreement.
Risk rating guide
| Rating | Meaning | Example |
|---|---|---|
| High | Creates material, uncapped, or operationally impossible risk | Broad indemnity + unlimited damages for any breach |
| Medium | Risk is real but manageable with process controls | Strict notice deadlines for compelled disclosure |
| Low | Mostly cosmetic or market-standard | Minor notice method issues |
Common pitfalls (issue → risk → fix)
| Issue | Risk | Suggested fix |
|---|---|---|
| “All information is confidential forever” | Operational burden; unfair risk allocation | Add fixed term + trade secret carve-out |
| No compelled disclosure carve-out | Breach if subpoenaed | Add “required by law” disclosure path |
| Return/destruction requires purge of backups | Impossible to comply | Add backup and system integrity exception |
| Recipient indemnifies discloser | Open-ended exposure | Remove indemnity; use direct damages only |
| Residuals clause | Allows de facto use of confidential info | Delete or restrict to non-trade-secret, non-source-code |
Review prompts (copy/paste)
A. Minimal prompt (fast)
- Role: Recipient/Discloser
- NDA type: one-way (unilateral)
- Purpose: …
- Please produce (1) exec summary, (2) clause-by-clause issue log table with: Clause, Issue, Risk, Preferred redline, Fallback, Rationale, Owner, Deadline, (3) top 5 negotiation points.
B. Deep prompt (recommended)
- Add constraints: affiliates, advisors, contractors, cross-border sharing, personal data, cloud tools.
- Ask for: preferred redline + fallback + rationale per issue.
Ownership & timing defaults (if the user does not specify)
Use these defaults to populate Owner and Deadline in the issue log:
| Topic | Default owner | Default deadline |
|---|---|---|
| Confidentiality scope/definition, exceptions, term/survival | Legal | Before signature |
| Security standards / audit rights | Security + Legal | Before signature |
| Return/destruction and backups | Security + IT + Legal | Before signature |
| Liability cap / damages / indemnity / fees | Legal + Finance | Before signature |
| Operational constraints (representatives, affiliates, tooling) | Legal + Business owner | Before signature |
Source
git clone https://github.com/lawvable/awesome-legal-skills/blob/main/skills/nda-review-jamie-tso/SKILL.mdView on GitHub Overview
A jurisdiction-agnostic guide for reviewing incoming one-way commercial NDAs from either Recipient or Discloser. It delivers an executive summary and a clause-by-clause issue log with preferred redlines, fallbacks, rationales, owners, and deadlines to streamline negotiation. Note: it does not provide jurisdiction-specific legal conclusions and should not replace counsel for complex deals.
How This Skill Works
Answer role, unilateral scope, deal context, parties, data types, and timeline to tailor the review. The tool then generates an executive summary and a clause-by-clause issue log table with columns for Clause, Issue, Risk, Preferred redline, Fallback, Rationale, Owner, and Deadline, focusing on commercial risk and market norms rather than jurisdiction-specific conclusions.
When to Use It
- Reviewing vendor or partner NDAs before starting a pilot or partnership
- Diligence or information gateway during M&A or investment processes
- Onboarding contractors, advisors, or consultants who will access confidential data
- Cross-border data sharing or cloud storage agreements with third parties
- NDAs in investor/VC diligence or evaluator scenarios involving sensitive plans
Quick Start
- Step 1: Collect inputs—role (Recipient or Discloser), confirm unilateral scope, deal purpose, parties, data types, and signing timeline
- Step 2: Generate the executive summary and populate the clause-by-clause issue log with risk, redlines, fallbacks, rationale, owner, and deadline
- Step 3: Review with counsel and decide to sign as-is, sign with changes, or escalate
Best Practices
- Confirm up front whether you are acting as Recipient or Discloser and that the NDA is truly unilateral
- Maintain a strict focus on commercial risk, feasibility, and market norms rather than asserting jurisdictional validity
- Use the clause-by-clause issue log template to capture issues, owners, and deadlines clearly
- Provide precise redlines with rationale and suggested fallbacks to facilitate negotiation
- Escalate high-risk or high-value terms to qualified counsel when needed
Example Use Cases
- Example 1: NDA with a software vendor to access pricing and architecture details during a pilot
- Example 2: Diligence NDA in a potential acquisition requiring access to financials and product roadmaps
- Example 3: Contractor NDA granting internal access to sensitive code or designs
- Example 4: VC diligence NDA sharing business plans and GTM strategies with a potential investor
- Example 5: Affiliate-friendly NDA requiring flow-downs to subsidiaries while maintaining unilateral scope