contract-redline

Imported from okou-ai/vm0-skills (contract-redline/SKILL.md). Install upstream with npx skills add okou-ai/vm0-skills --skill contract-redline. Copyright stays with the author.

Pre-Review Setup

Organizational Playbook

Before any analysis begins, look for a negotiation playbook configured in the user's local settings. A playbook codifies the organization's preferred positions, tolerable bands, and hard limits for every major provision category.

When no playbook exists:

• Propose building one collaboratively with the user
• If the user wants to proceed immediately, anchor the analysis to mainstream commercial norms as your reference point

Contextual Framing

Every review must start by establishing three things:

1. Agreement category -- Determine whether this is a SaaS subscription, professional services engagement, software license, channel partnership, procurement arrangement, or another structure. The category dictates which provisions carry the most weight.
2. Client posture -- Establish whether the organization sits on the buying side, selling side, licensing side, or partnership side. Protective language that benefits one party harms the other.
3. Holistic reading -- Read the entire document end-to-end before marking up any single provision. Provisions operate as an interconnected system. An aggressive indemnity clause may be counterbalanced by a strong liability cap elsewhere.

Provision-by-Provision Analysis

Liability Caps and Damage Exclusions

What to examine:

• Total cap structure: fixed dollar figure, fee multiple, or absence of any ceiling
• Symmetry of the cap between the parties
• Exceptions carved out from the cap and which party they favor
• Whether indirect, consequential, special, and punitive damages are waived
• Mutuality of the damages waiver
• Exceptions to the damages waiver
• Cap measurement window: per-incident, annual, or lifetime aggregate

Typical problems:

• Cap pegged to a small fraction of fees (for example, three months of spend on a modest-value deal)
• One-sided exceptions that hollow out the cap for the drafter's benefit
• Sweeping exception language like "any breach of this Agreement" that renders the cap meaningless
• Asymmetric damages waiver leaving one party exposed to consequential loss claims

Indemnification Provisions

What to examine:

• Reciprocity: does each side indemnify the other, or is it one-directional
• Triggering events: IP infringement, data incidents, personal injury, warranty breaches
• Relationship to the liability cap: subject to cap, partially capped, or unlimited
• Procedural mechanics: timely notice, who controls the defense, settlement authority
• Duty of the protected party to minimize harm
• Survival period after the agreement ends

Typical problems:

• One-directional IP indemnification when both parties contribute intellectual property
• Catch-all "any breach" triggers that effectively eliminate the liability ceiling
• No right for the indemnifying party to direct the legal defense
• Open-ended survival with no time boundary

Intellectual Property Rights

What to examine:

• Background IP ownership: each party must retain what they brought in
• Foreground IP: who owns work product created during the engagement
• Work-for-hire designations and whether their reach is proportionate
• License grants: breadth, exclusivity, geographic scope, sublicense rights
• Open source exposure
• Feedback provisions that grant rights over suggestions or improvements

Typical problems:

• Overbroad assignment language that could sweep in the customer's pre-existing assets
• Work-for-hire clauses extending well beyond the specific deliverables
• Perpetual, irrevocable feedback licenses with no practical limit
• License scope that exceeds what the business relationship actually requires

Data Protection Provisions

What to examine:

• Whether a Data Processing Agreement or Addendum is needed and present
• Controller/processor role allocation
• Sub-processor engagement rights and change-notification obligations
• Breach reporting window (must enable the controller to satisfy the 72-hour GDPR deadline)
• International transfer safeguards: Standard Contractual Clauses, adequacy findings, binding corporate rules
• Data return or destruction duties upon contract end
• Security standards and the controller's audit entitlements
• Processing purpose restrictions

Typical problems:

• Personal data in scope but no DPA attached
• Unrestricted sub-processor authorization with no advance notice
• Breach notification window that exceeds regulatory deadlines
• No transfer protections for data crossing international borders
• Vague or missing data deletion commitments

Duration, Renewal, and Exit

What to examine:

• Length of the initial commitment and any renewal periods
• Auto-renewal mechanics and the window for opting out
• Convenience termination: availability, required notice, early exit penalties
• Cause-based termination: what qualifies as cause, whether a cure window exists
• Post-termination obligations: data handback, transition support, surviving provisions
• Wind-down logistics and timeline

Typical problems:

• Extended initial lock-in with no convenience exit
• Auto-renewal paired with a narrow opt-out window (such as 30 days before an annual renewal)
• Termination for cause with no opportunity to remedy the breach
• Weak or nonexistent transition assistance language
• Survival provisions that effectively perpetuate core obligations

Dispute Resolution and Governing Law

What to examine:

• Applicable law and jurisdiction selection
• Resolution pathway: courts, arbitration, mandatory mediation step
• Litigation venue and personal jurisdiction
• Arbitral institution, procedural rules, and seat (if arbitration applies)
• Jury trial waiver
• Class action waiver
• Fee-shifting for the prevailing party

Typical problems:

• Inconvenient or obscure venue selection
• Compulsory arbitration under rules that advantage the drafter
• Jury waiver without compensating procedural safeguards
• No graduated escalation mechanism before formal proceedings

Deviation Rating System

GREEN -- Within Bounds

The provision matches or improves upon the organization's baseline position. Any variation is commercially sensible and does not meaningfully shift risk.

Illustrations:

• Liability cap set at 18 months of fees when the baseline calls for 12 months (favorable to the buyer)
• Mutual confidentiality term of 2 years against a 3-year baseline (shorter but reasonable)
• Governing law in a reputable commercial jurisdiction near the preferred one

Response: Note for transparency. No negotiation warranted.

YELLOW -- Push Back

The provision sits outside the baseline but within a zone where negotiation is realistic. The position is seen in the market but is not the organization's preference. Warrants attention and discussion, though not immediate escalation.

Illustrations:

• Liability cap at 6 months of fees against a 12-month baseline (below standard yet negotiable)
• One-directional IP indemnification when the baseline is mutual (common but not preferred)
• Auto-renewal opt-out of 60 days when the baseline is 90 days
• Acceptable but non-preferred governing law jurisdiction

Response: Draft specific replacement language. Supply a fallback if the primary ask is refused. Estimate the business consequence of accepting the term as-is versus negotiating.

RED -- Escalate Immediately

The provision breaches the acceptable range, trips a defined escalation trigger, or introduces material exposure. Requires review by senior counsel, outside legal advisors, or a business decision-maker with sign-off authority.

Illustrations:

• No liability cap at all, or no limitation of liability provision
• Unilateral, uncapped, broadly-scoped indemnification
• Assignment of the organization's background intellectual property
• Personal data processing with no DPA offered
• Unreasonable restrictive covenants or exclusivity demands
• Hostile jurisdiction combined with mandatory arbitration

Response: Articulate the precise exposure. Offer market-standard replacement language. Quantify potential downside. Recommend the appropriate escalation path.

Crafting Effective Redlines

Principles for producing markup that advances the negotiation:

1. Supply exact text -- Deliver language that can be inserted verbatim, not abstract guidance.
2. Stay commercially reasonable -- Aggressive overreach slows deals. Be firm on critical protections and pragmatic elsewhere.
3. Include professional rationale -- Attach a concise justification suitable for sharing with opposing counsel.
4. Offer a Plan B -- For every YELLOW item, provide a secondary position in case the first request is declined.
5. Rank by importance -- Signal which markups are essential and which are strategic asks.
6. Match the relationship context -- Calibrate tone depending on whether the counterparty is a new vendor, a long-standing partner, or a commodity supplier.

Markup Format

Present each proposed change as follows:

**Provision**: [Section number and title]
**Existing text**: "[verbatim excerpt from the agreement]"
**Proposed replacement**: "[specific new language]"
**Justification**: [One to two sentences explaining the rationale, appropriate for external sharing]
**Importance**: [Essential / Strongly Preferred / Optional]
**Fallback**: [Alternative position if the primary request is declined]

Negotiation Prioritization

Organize all proposed markups into three tiers to guide negotiation strategy:

Tier 1 -- Non-Negotiable (Walk-Away Items)

Provisions where the organization cannot execute the agreement without resolution:

• Absent or grossly inadequate liability protections
• Missing data protection requirements for regulated information
• IP terms that jeopardize core business assets
• Clauses that conflict with the organization's regulatory obligations

Tier 2 -- High Priority (Strong Preferences)

Provisions that materially affect the risk profile but allow room for negotiation:

• Liability cap adjustments within the acceptable band
• Indemnification scope and reciprocity improvements
• Flexibility around termination and exit rights
• Audit, inspection, and compliance verification rights

Tier 3 -- Strategic Concessions (Trading Material)

Provisions that strengthen the position but can be yielded to secure more important wins:

• Preferred governing law when the alternative is still acceptable
• Notice period fine-tuning
• Minor definitional refinements
• Insurance documentation requirements

Negotiation approach: Open with Tier 1 demands. Offer Tier 3 concessions as currency to lock in Tier 2 outcomes. Never yield on Tier 1 without escalating to authorized decision-makers.