mohitagw15856
036511ab3e
Broadens both reach (more tools) and content types (an MCP server), continuing the multi-platform story. Windsurf + Aider: - build-exports.mjs gains two platforms: exports/windsurf/*.md (workspace rules, trigger: model_decision) and exports/aider/*.md (conventions for `aider --read`). Now 5 platforms (ChatGPT, Gemini, Cursor, Windsurf, Aider). - install.sh + bin/cli.mjs install both (windsurf -> .windsurf/rules, aider -> .aider/skills with a --read hint); generated README index is excluded from copies. - One-line windsurf-install.sh / aider-install.sh wrappers for parity. MCP server (new content type): - mcp/server.mjs — zero-dependency stdio MCP server exposing list_skills, search_skills, get_skill. Published as a second bin (pm-claude-skills-mcp). Logs to stderr; reads bundled skills/ at startup. mcp/README.md documents client config. Also: README hero "See it in action" demo placement (ready to swap in a GIF; recording guide in web/docs-assets/README.md), Works-With table + exports + install docs updated, CHANGELOG Unreleased. package.json files/bin updated. Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016JWn5jRD5tcEFKrubjQ6Px Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
72 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
72 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
# NDA Analyser Skill
|
|
|
|
NDAs are often treated as routine paperwork but contain terms with significant long-term consequences. This skill analyses them systematically.
|
|
|
|
## Required Inputs
|
|
- **NDA text** (paste in full or describe key clauses)
|
|
- **Your party position** (disclosing / receiving / mutual)
|
|
- **Purpose of the NDA** (e.g. pre-sales, hiring, M&A, partnership)
|
|
- **Industry context** (optional)
|
|
|
|
## Output Structure
|
|
|
|
### 1. NDA Type and Parties
|
|
- **Type:** Unilateral / Mutual
|
|
- **Disclosing party:** [Name]
|
|
- **Receiving party:** [Name]
|
|
- **Purpose:** [As stated]
|
|
- **Governing law:** [Jurisdiction]
|
|
- **Term:** [Duration of obligations]
|
|
|
|
### 2. Definition of Confidential Information
|
|
- **How broadly defined?** Narrow / Standard / Very broad
|
|
- **Oral disclosures included?** Yes / No / With conditions
|
|
- **Standard exclusions present?** [public domain, prior knowledge, independently developed, legally required disclosure]
|
|
- **Flag:** [Unusual inclusions or missing exclusions]
|
|
|
|
### 3. Key Clause Analysis
|
|
|
|
**[Clause name] — Concern / Watch / Standard**
|
|
- **What it says:** [Plain English]
|
|
- **Issue:** [Why flagged]
|
|
- **Standard position:** [What this typically looks like]
|
|
- **Negotiation suggestion:** [If applicable]
|
|
|
|
Clauses always covered: permitted use, non-solicitation/non-compete, term and post-termination obligations, return/destruction of information, remedies, liability, residuals clause.
|
|
|
|
### 4. Negotiation Checklist
|
|
|
|
| Point | Current position | Suggested ask |
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
|
| [e.g. Confidentiality term] | [e.g. 5 years] | [e.g. Reduce to 2 years] |
|
|
|
|
### 5. Plain English Verdict
|
|
2-3 sentences. Standard NDA, one-sided, or needs a lawyer?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
WARNING: This analysis is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified solicitor before signing.
|
|
|
|
## Quality Checks
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Definition of confidential information assessed for scope (narrow / standard / very broad)
|
|
- [ ] Residuals clause checked (allows memory use of disclosed information — high-risk)
|
|
- [ ] Non-solicitation / non-compete provisions flagged
|
|
- [ ] Post-termination obligations duration noted
|
|
- [ ] Plain English verdict given (standard / one-sided / needs lawyer)
|
|
- [ ] Disclaimer is included
|
|
|
|
## Anti-Patterns
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Do not present the analysis as legal advice — the disclaimer must appear prominently and the output must recommend qualified legal review before any signing decision
|
|
- [ ] Do not skip the residuals clause check — residuals clauses allow the receiving party to use disclosed information from memory, which is one of the highest-risk provisions in any NDA
|
|
- [ ] Do not evaluate only the clauses explicitly flagged by the user — a complete analysis must cover all standard clause types even if the user only asked about one
|
|
- [ ] Do not assess breadth of the confidentiality definition without checking for oral disclosure coverage — oral disclosures with no written confirmation requirement are a common enforcement gap
|
|
- [ ] Do not omit the plain English verdict — a clause-by-clause analysis without a summary conclusion leaves the user unable to act on the findings
|
|
|
|
## Example Trigger Phrases
|
|
- "Analyse this NDA"
|
|
- "Review this confidentiality agreement"
|
|
- "Is this NDA standard or unusual?"
|
|
- "What should I negotiate in this mutual NDA?"
|