Skip to content

Improve vendor agreement review workflow #115

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
andrewgao2012 wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Improve vendor agreement review workflow #115

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
d80a8e6
Improve vendor agreement review workflow
andrewgao2012 Aug 30, 2026
3d44eb8
Complete vendor review workflow improvements
andrewgao2012 Aug 30, 2026
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
14 changes: 8 additions & 6 deletions commercial-legal/skills/vendor-agreement-review/SKILL.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -64,8 +64,8 @@ Read the whole agreement once, fast. Answer:
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| What kind of agreement is this? | MSA / SaaS subscription / Professional services / License / Other |
| Who are we? | Customer / Vendor (this plugin assumes customer — flag if not) |
| Counterparty | Name, and are they a BigCo (won't negotiate) or a startup (will)? |
| Who are we? | Customer / Vendor — determine from the agreement and apply the matching playbook side; ask if unclear |
| Counterparty | Name, size/type if known, and any known negotiation leverage or constraints. Do not infer willingness to negotiate from company size alone. |
| Dollar value | Annual / total contract value if stated |
| Term | Length, renewal mechanics |
| Is there a DPA? | Attached / referenced by URL / missing |
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -103,10 +103,11 @@ hard no. Recommend:
- [ ] Push back — propose [specific alternative language]
- [ ] Walk — if counterparty won't move, we don't sign

Detailed review below is provided for completeness but is moot unless this is
resolved.
Detailed review is paused because this deal-breaker must be resolved first.
If the user explicitly asks to continue, resume the remaining review and label
it as conditional on resolution of the deal-breaker.
```

**Workflow gate:** If a deal-breaker is present, stop here unless the user explicitly asks to continue the review. If no deal-breaker is present, proceed to Step 3.
### Step 3: Term-by-term comparison

For each playbook category in `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/commercial-legal/CLAUDE.md`, find the corresponding contract section and compare.
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -335,7 +336,8 @@ Do not proceed past this gate without an explicit yes.
- [ ] Every issue has specific replacement language
- [ ] Risk levels are calibrated (not everything is Critical)
- [ ] Approver is named, not "escalate to legal"
- [ ] Counterparty context considered (BigCo vs. startup — affects what's worth fighting over)
- [ ] - [ ] Counterparty context considered
(size/type, negotiation leverage, and known constraints — do not infer willingness to negotiate from company size alone)

## Close with the next-steps decision tree

Expand Down
Loading