Clause Explainer

SKILL.md

---
name: clause-explainer
description: "Explain a contract clause in plain English — what it means, who it favours, the realistic risk, and what to negotiate. Use when asked what a clause means, to decode legal language, explain a term in a contract, or assess whether a provision is standard or aggressive. Produces a plain-language translation, a who-does-this-favour read, a risk rating, and concrete redline suggestions. Not legal advice; confirm with counsel."
homepage: https://mohitagw15856.github.io/pm-claude-skills/skill/clause-explainer.html
metadata:
  {
    "openclaw": { "emoji": "⚖️" }
  }
---

# 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