curated-contract-compare

jeremylongshore/claude-code-plugins-plus-skillsLegalAudit pendingSnapshot dad6e5af798a

Summary

This source did not publish a separate summary. Review SKILL.md before using the skill.

SKILL.md

Contract Compare — Version Comparison and Favorability Analysis

Side-by-side contract comparison skill that identifies every change between two versions, classifies each change by type and severity, and determines which party each modification favors. Essential during negotiation rounds when a counterparty returns a revised draft.

Overview

When a counterparty returns a revised contract, the changes they made — and the changes they quietly did not make — tell a story about their priorities and strategy. This skill performs a structured comparison that surfaces not just what changed, but the strategic significance of each change.

It detects three dangerous patterns that manual review frequently misses: indemnification drift (gradual shifting of liability across revisions), IP scope creep (expanding intellectual property assignment through small wording tweaks), and definition manipulation (redefining key terms to alter clause meaning without touching the clauses themselves).

Prerequisites

Two versions of the same contract must be provided, either as:
- Two file paths (e.g., contract-v1.pdf and contract-v2.pdf)
- One file path and one pasted text block
- Two pasted text blocks labeled "Version A" and "Version B"
The user should specify which version is the original (baseline) and which is the revision. If not specified, assume the first provided is the original.

Instructions

Ingest both versions. Read each document in full. If file paths are provided, use the Read tool.
Establish the structural map. Create a section-by-section outline of both documents. Note any structural changes (sections added, removed, renumbered, or reordered).
Perform clause-level comparison. For each section, classify changes into:

Change Type Symbol

Calculate the favorability balance. Tally all changes by which party they favor and the severity weight:

Party A Score = (Major changes favoring A x 3) + (Moderate x 2) + (Minor x 1)
Party B Score = same formula for B
Balance: A-favored / B-favored / Balanced

# Contract Comparison Report
## Documents Compared
| | Version A (Original) | Version B (Revision) |
## Summary of Changes
| Change Type | Count |
## Change Log (by section)
| Section | Change Type | Description | Favors | Severity |
## Dangerous Pattern Alerts
## Favorability Balance
## Silent Removals
## Negotiation Strategy Recommendations
## Disclaimer

Failure Mode	Cause	Resolution
Documents are unrelated	Two entirely different contracts provided	Warn the user and ask for confirmation before proceeding
Structural mismatch	Different section numbering schemes	Map sections by content, not by number
Missing version identifier	User did not specify which is original	Ask which version is the baseline
Partial document	One version is incomplete or truncated	Note the gaps; compare only overlapping sections
Format mismatch	One is formatted text, other is raw	Normalize both to plain text before comparing

Summary: 14 changes detected across 23 sections.

Key Changes:
1. Section 5.1 (IP Assignment) [MODIFIED] — Severity: MAJOR
   Original: "Work product created under SOW is assigned to Client"
   Revision: "Work product created in connection with the engagement
   is assigned to Client"
   Favors: Client | Signal: Expanding IP scope beyond SOW deliverables

2. Section 8.3 (Liability Cap) [MODIFIED] — Severity: MAJOR
   Original: "Liability capped at 12 months of fees paid"
   Revision: "Liability capped at fees paid in the preceding 3 months"
   Favors: Vendor | Signal: 75% reduction in liability exposure

3. Section 2 (Definitions) [MODIFIED] — Severity: MAJOR
   "Confidential Information" definition expanded to include
   "business strategies and future product plans" — broadens
   confidentiality obligations without touching Section 7.

DANGEROUS PATTERN: Definition manipulation detected.
The revision altered 3 defined terms that collectively change
the meaning of 7 other clauses without modifying those clauses.

Favorability Balance: 9 changes favor Client, 4 favor Vendor, 1 Neutral
Overall Tilt: Client-favored revision

SILENT REMOVAL ALERT:
Original Section 4(d) — "Employee may terminate with 2 weeks notice
for any reason" — has been removed entirely. The revision contains
no voluntary termination provision for the employee, while the
employer retains at-will termination rights in Section 4(a).

Added	+	Entirely new clause or section
Removed	-	Clause present in original but absent in revision
Modified	~	Wording changed within an existing clause
Moved	->	Same content relocated to a different section
Unchanged	=	No material difference

curated-contract-compare

Summary

SKILL.md

Contract Compare — Version Comparison and Favorability Analysis

Overview

Prerequisites

Instructions

Output

Error Handling

Examples

Resources

Related skills