Clause Explainer Skill

Most people sign clauses they don't fully understand. This skill translates a single clause into plain English, says who it really protects, rates the risk, and suggests how to push back. Not legal advice — interpretation depends on the full contract and jurisdiction; confirm with a qualified lawyer.

Working from a brief

Given the clause text (or a description), explain it fully anyway. If only a clause type is named, explain the typical version and note it should be checked against the actual wording. Never refuse for missing surrounding context; flag what the rest of the contract could change.

Required Inputs

Ask for (if not already provided):

• The clause text (paste it) — or the clause type if text isn't available
• Which side the reader is on (the party signing, the drafter, etc.)
• Contract type (employment, SaaS, NDA, lease, services) for context
• Any specific worry (e.g. "is this auto-renewal aggressive?")

Output Format

1. In plain English

What this clause actually does, in 1–3 jargon-free sentences.

2. Who it favours

Which party this protects or burdens, and how. Be direct.

3. Is it standard or aggressive?

Whether this is market-standard, founder/tenant/employee-favourable, or unusually one-sided — with what "normal" looks like for this clause type.

4. Risk for you

🟢 Low / 🟡 Medium / 🔴 High — and the specific scenario where it would bite.

5. What to negotiate

Concrete redline suggestions: the change to ask for, with example wording where useful (e.g. "cap liability at fees paid in the prior 12 months", "add a 30-day cure period before termination").

6. Questions to ask counsel

The 1–2 things a lawyer should confirm against the full contract.

Quality Checks

• The plain-English translation avoids restating the legalese
• Says clearly who the clause favours
• Risk rating is tied to a concrete scenario, not generic
• Redline suggestions are specific and actionable
• Retains "not legal advice — confirm with counsel"

Anti-Patterns

• Re-stating the clause in slightly different legalese instead of explaining it
• "It depends" with no actual read
• Risk ratings with no scenario behind them
• Suggesting changes with no example of the better wording