name: negotiate description: 'Analyzes contracts for unfavorable or risky clauses and generates prioritized
counter-proposals with replacement language. Use when reviewing a contract before
signing, preparing for a negotiation, or responding to unfavorable terms.
Trigger with "/negotiate" or "generate counter-proposals for this contract".
' allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep version: 1.0.0 author: Intent Solutions jeremy@intentsolutions.io license: MIT tags:
- legal
- negotiation
- contracts
- counter-proposal compatibility: Designed for Claude Code, also compatible with Codex and OpenClaw
Contract Negotiation Strategy Generator
Overview
Reads a contract or agreement, identifies clauses that are unfavorable, one-sided, or carry hidden risk, and produces a structured negotiation strategy document with specific counter-proposals ranked by priority. Benchmarks replacement language against CommonPaper standard clauses (CC BY 4.0) to ensure proposed alternatives reflect market norms.
This skill performs analysis only — it does not create new contracts. It reads the source document and outputs a negotiation strategy in Markdown.
Legal Disclaimer: This skill generates AI-assisted analysis for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. All counter-proposals and replacement language must be reviewed by a licensed attorney before use in any binding agreement. No attorney-client relationship is created by using this tool.
Prerequisites
- A contract or agreement file accessible in the workspace (
.md,.txt, or.pdf) - Knowledge of the user's negotiating position (buyer, seller, service provider, etc.)
- Understanding of which party the user represents
Instructions
-
Identify the contract. Locate the contract file using Glob. If multiple contracts exist, ask the user to confirm which one to analyze.
-
Read the full contract. Use Read to ingest the entire document. Note the parties, effective date, governing law, and contract type.
-
Classify the user's position. Determine which party the user represents and their leverage context (e.g., small vendor vs. enterprise buyer).
-
Scan for unfavorable clauses. Evaluate every section against these risk categories:
- Liability & Indemnification — unlimited liability, one-sided indemnity, no caps
- Termination — termination for convenience without notice, auto-renewal traps
- IP & Ownership — broad IP assignment, work-for-hire overreach
- Payment — late payment penalties without reciprocal terms, NET-90+
- Confidentiality — perpetual obligations, overly broad definitions
- Non-Compete / Non-Solicit — excessive scope, duration, or geography
- Limitation of Liability — exclusion of consequential damages only for one party
- Governing Law & Dispute — inconvenient jurisdiction, mandatory arbitration
- Data & Privacy — broad data usage rights, no breach notification
- Force Majeure — missing or one-sided
-
Prioritize findings into three tiers:
- MUST-CHANGE — Clauses that create unacceptable legal or financial risk. Deal-breakers if not modified.
- SHOULD-CHANGE — Clauses that are unfavorable but negotiable. Significant improvement if changed.
- NICE-TO-CHANGE — Minor improvements that strengthen position but are not critical.
-
Generate counter-proposals. For each flagged clause:
- Quote the original clause text verbatim
- Explain the specific risk in plain English
- Provide replacement language (benchmark against CommonPaper standard clauses)
- Include a confidence indicator: HIGH (standard market practice), MEDIUM (reasonable but may face pushback), LOW (aggressive position)
- Write 2-3 negotiation talking points explaining why the change is fair
-
Draft a professional email template. Create a ready-to-send email that:
- Opens with appreciation for the partnership/opportunity
- Frames changes as "clarifications" or "alignment with market standards"
- References specific clause numbers
- Maintains a collaborative, non-adversarial tone
- Closes with a request for a call to discuss
-
Compile the strategy document. Assemble all findings into the output format below.
Output
Generate a single Markdown file named NEGOTIATION-STRATEGY-{contract-name}.md with:
# Negotiation Strategy: {Contract Name}
## Summary
- Contract: {name}
- Parties: {Party A} / {Party B}
- Representing: {which party}
- Date analyzed: {date}
- Clauses flagged: {count} ({MUST}: N, {SHOULD}: N, {NICE}: N)
## Risk Overview
{2-3 sentence executive summary of overall contract fairness}
## MUST-CHANGE Clauses
### 1. {Section Reference} — {Short Description}
**Original:** > {quoted text}
**Risk:** {plain English explanation}
**Counter-Proposal:** {replacement language}
**Confidence:** {HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW}
**Talking Points:**
- {point 1}
- {point 2}
## SHOULD-CHANGE Clauses
{same format}
## NICE-TO-CHANGE Clauses
{same format}
## Negotiation Email Draft
{professional email template}
## Benchmarks Referenced
- CommonPaper Standard Cloud Agreement (CC BY 4.0)
- {other relevant standards}
Error Handling
| Error | Cause | Solution |
|---|---|---|
| No contract file found | Missing or wrong path | Ask user for the file location |
| Ambiguous party role | Cannot determine who user represents | Ask user to clarify their position |
| Non-English contract | Skill optimized for English common law | Warn user; provide best-effort analysis with caveats |
| Highly specialized terms | Domain-specific clauses (e.g., pharma, defense) | Flag as requiring specialist review |
| PDF format unreadable | Scanned image PDF | Ask user for text version or OCR output |
Examples
Example 1: SaaS Vendor Agreement
Request: "Analyze this vendor agreement and generate counter-proposals — we're the customer"
Result: Strategy document identifying 12 clauses across 3 tiers:
- MUST-CHANGE: Unlimited liability for customer (cap at 12 months fees), auto-renewal without 60-day notice window
- SHOULD-CHANGE: NET-60 payment terms (propose NET-30 with 2% early payment discount), broad IP license grant
- NICE-TO-CHANGE: Governing law in vendor's state (propose mutual arbitration)
Example 2: Freelancer Service Agreement
Request: "Review this freelance contract — I'm the freelancer"
Result: Strategy identifying one-sided IP assignment (propose limited license), missing kill fee provision (propose 25% kill fee after kickoff), and 2-year non-compete (propose narrowing to direct competitors for 6 months).
Resources
- CommonPaper Standard Agreements — CC BY 4.0 open-source contract standards
- Bonterms Cloud Terms — CC BY 4.0 standardized cloud contracting
- American Bar Association Model Agreements — professional benchmarks
- SCORE Contract Negotiation Guide — SBA-funded small business resources