Contract review assistant analyzing agreements against playbooks. GREEN/YELLOW/RED severity. Use when reviewing vendor contracts, SaaS agreements, service agreements, or generating redline suggestions.
Automated contract review tools that analyze agreements against organizational playbooks, classify clause risk with GREEN/YELLOW/RED severity, and generate prioritized redline suggestions with fallback positions.
Analyzes contract text files for clause types, missing standard clauses, and risk indicators.
# Analyze a contract file
python scripts/contract_analyzer.py contract.txt
# JSON output for pipeline integration
python scripts/contract_analyzer.py agreement.md --json
# Save analysis to file
python scripts/contract_analyzer.py contract.txt --output analysis.json --json
What it detects:
Risk Classification:
| Level | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|
| RED | Deal-breaker risk | Must negotiate before signing |
| YELLOW | Material concern | Should negotiate, may accept with mitigation |
| GREEN | Standard or favorable | Acceptable as-is |
Takes contract analysis JSON and generates formatted redline suggestions with priority tiers.
# Generate redlines from analysis
python scripts/contract_analyzer.py contract.txt --json --output analysis.json
python scripts/redline_generator.py analysis.json
# JSON output
python scripts/redline_generator.py analysis.json --json
# Save redlines to file
python scripts/redline_generator.py analysis.json --output redlines.md
Output includes:
Priority Tiers:
| Tier | Label | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Must-Have | Deal-breakers; walk away if rejected |
| 2 | Should-Have | Strong preferences; push hard but negotiable |
| 3 | Nice-to-Have | Concession candidates; trade for Tier 1-2 wins |
references/clause_analysis_guide.md
Deep reference covering 8+ clause types:
references/negotiation_playbook.md
Negotiation priority framework with:
.txt or .md filecontract_analyzer.py with --json flagredline_generator.py on analysis outputcontract_analyzer.py in text mode for quick scan| Problem | Cause | Solution |
|---|---|---|
Error: File not found | Contract file path is incorrect or file does not exist | Verify the file path; use absolute paths if relative paths fail |
| No clauses detected | Contract uses unusual formatting or non-standard clause headers | Ensure contract is plain text; strip PDF artifacts before analysis |
| All clauses marked GREEN | Contract is genuinely favorable, or text extraction missed key sections | Manually verify critical clauses (liability, indemnification, IP) are present in the input file |
| Redline generator produces empty output | Analysis JSON has no YELLOW or RED findings | Confirm analysis JSON is valid; re-run analyzer if contract was updated |
| False positive on uncapped liability | Liability section references a cap elsewhere in the document | Review the full Limitation of Liability section; the tool scans for cap keywords within each clause boundary |
| Missing clause false positive | Clause exists but uses non-standard heading (e.g., "Damages Cap" instead of "Limitation of Liability") | The analyzer checks multiple heading variants; add custom aliases if your organization uses unique terminology |
Covers:
Does NOT cover:
ra-qm-team skills for regulatory compliance (GDPR, SOC 2, etc.)| Anti-Pattern | Why It Fails | Better Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Signing contracts with only GREEN findings and no human review | Automated analysis cannot catch context-dependent risks, ambiguous language, or business-specific concerns | Always have qualified counsel review before execution, even on all-GREEN contracts |
| Treating all RED findings as equal | Some RED items are structural deal-breakers while others may be resolvable with a single word change | Use the redline generator to assess effort and fallback positions for each RED finding |
| Skipping the redline fallback positions | Entering negotiation with only preferred positions leaves no room for strategic concession | Always prepare Must-Have fallbacks and identify Nice-to-Have items to trade away |
| Running analysis on poorly extracted text | PDF-to-text conversion artifacts break clause detection patterns | Clean the text file before analysis: remove headers, footers, page numbers, and formatting artifacts |
Purpose: Analyzes contract text files for clause types, identifies missing standard clauses, and flags risk indicators with GREEN/YELLOW/RED severity classification.
Usage:
python scripts/contract_analyzer.py <contract_file> [--json] [--output FILE]
Flags:
| Flag | Short | Default | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
contract_file | (positional) | Path to contract text file (.txt or .md) | |
--json | off | Output in JSON format | |
--output | -o | (stdout) | Write output to file |
Example Output (JSON):
{
"file": "vendor_agreement.txt",
"clauses_found": [
{
"type": "limitation_of_liability",
"severity": "RED",
"text_snippet": "...liability shall not be limited...",
"risk_flags": ["uncapped_liability"],
"notes": "No liability cap found; uncapped exposure"
}
],
"missing_clauses": ["force_majeure", "data_protection"],
"risk_summary": {"RED": 2, "YELLOW": 3, "GREEN": 5},
"overall_risk": "RED"
}
Purpose: Takes contract analysis JSON and generates formatted redline suggestions with priority tiers, rationale, and fallback positions.
Usage:
python scripts/redline_generator.py <analysis_json> [--json] [--output FILE]
Flags:
| Flag | Short | Default | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
analysis_json | (positional) | Path to contract analysis JSON file | |
--json | off | Output in JSON format | |
--output | -o | (stdout) | Write output to file |
Example Output:
REDLINE SUGGESTIONS
===================
[MUST-HAVE] Limitation of Liability — Uncapped Liability
Severity: RED
Preferred: "Aggregate liability shall not exceed 12 months of fees paid."
Rationale: Uncapped liability creates unlimited financial exposure.
Fallback: "Aggregate liability shall not exceed 24 months of fees paid."
[SHOULD-HAVE] Indemnification — Unilateral Indemnification
Severity: YELLOW
Preferred: "Each party shall indemnify the other for breaches of this Agreement."
Rationale: Mutual indemnification balances risk between parties.
Fallback: "Indemnification obligations shall be subject to the liability cap."