nda-review
Compare original and translation side by side
🇺🇸
Original
English🇨🇳
Translation
Chinese⚠️ EXPERIMENTAL — This skill is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It does NOT constitute legal advice. All responsibility for usage rests with the user. Consult qualified legal professionals before acting on any output.
⚠️ EXPERIMENTAL — 本技能仅用于教育和信息展示目的，不构成法律建议。使用风险由用户自行承担。根据输出内容采取行动前，请咨询合格的法律专业人士。
NDA Review
NDA审查
Deep clause-by-clause NDA review tool that analyzes agreements from Recipient or Discloser perspective. Produces structured issue logs with preferred redlines, fallback positions, rationale, owners, and deadlines.
一款从接收方（Recipient）或披露方（Discloser）视角分析协议的NDA逐条深度审查工具。生成包含推荐修订标记、备选立场、理由、负责人和截止日期的结构化问题日志。
Table of Contents
目录
Tools
工具
NDA Clause Reviewer
NDA条款审查器
Performs deep analysis of NDA text, extracting and classifying each clause against best practices. Detects overbroad definitions, missing carveouts, problematic residuals, IP grants, indemnification, and audit rights.
bash
undefined对NDA文本进行深度分析，对照最佳实践提取并分类每条条款。检测过于宽泛的定义、缺失的例外条款、有问题的剩余权利、知识产权授权、赔偿条款和审计权。
bash
undefinedReview from recipient perspective (default)
Review from recipient perspective (default)
python scripts/nda_clause_reviewer.py nda_draft.txt
python scripts/nda_clause_reviewer.py nda_draft.txt
Review from discloser perspective
Review from discloser perspective
python scripts/nda_clause_reviewer.py nda_draft.txt --perspective discloser
python scripts/nda_clause_reviewer.py nda_draft.txt --perspective discloser
JSON output for integration
JSON output for integration
python scripts/nda_clause_reviewer.py nda_draft.txt --json
python scripts/nda_clause_reviewer.py nda_draft.txt --json
Save issue log
Save issue log
python scripts/nda_clause_reviewer.py nda_draft.txt --output issues.json --json
**What it produces:**
- Clause-by-clause issue log with H/M/L risk ratings
- Preferred redline for each issue
- Fallback position if preferred is rejected
- Rationale for each recommendation
- Owner assignment (legal, business, executive)
- Deadline category (pre-signing, 30-day, 90-day)
---python scripts/nda_clause_reviewer.py nda_draft.txt --output issues.json --json
**生成内容：**
- 带有高/中/低（H/M/L）风险评级的逐条问题日志
- 每个问题的推荐修订标记
- 若推荐方案被拒绝后的备选立场
- 每项建议的理由
- 负责人分配（法务、业务、高管）
- 截止日期类别（签署前、30天内、90天内）
---Reference Guides
参考指南
NDA Clause Reference
NDA条款参考
references/nda_clause_reference.mdFive deep reference modules:
- Duration & Scope (term, survival, scope limitations)
- Key Clauses (definition, purpose, permitted use, marking)
- Party Obligations (standard of care, use restriction, disclosure limits)
- Remedies & Liability (injunctive relief, damages, indemnification)
- Standard Exceptions (public knowledge, prior possession, independent development, third-party receipt, legal compulsion)
references/nda_clause_reference.md五个深度参考模块：
- 期限与范围（条款期限、存续期、范围限制）
- 核心条款（定义、目的、允许用途、标记要求）
- 各方义务（注意标准、使用限制、披露限制）
- 救济与责任（禁令救济、损害赔偿、赔偿）
- 标准例外（公开信息、预先持有、独立开发、第三方接收、法律强制要求）
NDA Review Templates
NDA审查模板
references/nda_review_templates.mdOutput templates and worked examples:
- Executive Summary format
- Clause-by-clause Issue Log table format
- Ownership and timing defaults by topic category
- Worked examples for social media endorsement and group licensing scenarios
references/nda_review_templates.md输出模板和示例：
- 执行摘要格式
- 逐条问题日志表格格式
- 按主题分类的负责人和时间默认设置
- 社交媒体代言和集团许可场景的示例
Workflows
工作流程
Full NDA Review
完整NDA审查
- Triage first -- Run skill for quick GREEN/YELLOW/RED classification
nda-triage - Deep review -- Run with appropriate
nda_clause_reviewer.py--perspective - Review issue log -- Address HIGH-risk items first, then MEDIUM, then LOW
- Prepare redlines -- Use preferred positions; prepare fallbacks
- Assign owners -- Legal owns clause language; business owns commercial terms
- Set deadlines -- Pre-signing items before next meeting; post-signing items within 30-90 days
- Negotiate -- Present redlines; use fallbacks as needed
- Final review -- Verify all issues resolved before execution
- 先分类筛选 -- 运行技能进行快速绿/黄/红分类
nda-triage - 深度审查 -- 使用合适的参数运行
--perspectivenda_clause_reviewer.py - 审核问题日志 -- 先处理高风险项，再处理中风险，最后低风险
- 准备修订标记 -- 使用推荐立场；准备备选方案
- 分配负责人 -- 法务负责条款语言；业务负责商业条款
- 设置截止日期 -- 签署前事项需在下次会议前完成；签署后事项在30-90天内完成
- 谈判 -- 展示修订标记；必要时使用备选方案
- 最终审查 -- 签署前确认所有问题已解决
Perspective-Based Review
基于视角的审查
| Perspective | Focus Areas | Key Concerns |
|---|---|---|
| Recipient | Scope of obligations, carveouts, residuals, return/destruction | Protecting freedom to operate; avoiding contamination claims |
| Discloser | Definition breadth, remedies, duration, permitted disclosures | Maximizing protection; ensuring adequate enforcement |
| 视角 | 重点领域 | 核心关注点 |
|---|---|---|
| Recipient（接收方） | 义务范围、例外条款、剩余权利、返还/销毁 | 保护经营自由；避免污染索赔 |
| Discloser（披露方） | 定义广度、救济措施、期限、允许披露 | 最大化保护；确保充分执行 |
Immediate Red Flags
即时危险信号
Stop review and escalate if any of these 7 red flags are present.
| # | Red Flag | Why It Matters | Escalation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Non-compete clause | Restricts business operations; requires separate consideration and analysis | Senior counsel immediately |
| 2 | IP assignment or license grant | Transfers rights beyond confidentiality scope | Senior counsel immediately |
| 3 | Non-solicitation of employees or customers | Employment law implications; may be unenforceable | Senior counsel within 24 hours |
| 4 | Missing 3+ standard carveouts | Fundamentally deficient NDA | Counsel review before any response |
| 5 | Liquidated damages or penalty clause | Transforms NDA into penalty contract | Senior counsel within 24 hours |
| 6 | Perpetual obligations with no termination | Indefinite legal burden with no exit | Counsel review within 48 hours |
| 7 | Exclusivity provision | Limits engagement with other parties | Business leadership + counsel |
若出现以下7种危险信号之一，请停止审查并升级处理。
| # | 危险信号 | 重要性 | 升级方式 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 竞业禁止条款 | 限制业务运营；需要单独考量和分析 | 立即提交资深法务 |
| 2 | 知识产权转让或许可授权 | 超出保密范围转移权利 | 立即提交资深法务 |
| 3 | 禁止招揽员工或客户 | 涉及劳动法问题；可能无法执行 | 24小时内提交资深法务 |
| 4 | 缺失3项以上标准例外条款 | NDA存在根本性缺陷 | 回复前先提交法务审查 |
| 5 | 约定违约金或惩罚条款 | 将NDA转化为惩罚性合同 | 24小时内提交资深法务 |
| 6 | 无终止条款的永久义务 | 无退出机制的无限法律负担 | 48小时内提交法务审查 |
| 7 | 排他性条款 | 限制与其他方合作 | 业务领导层+法务 |
Review Checklists
审查清单
Recipient Checklist (8 Topics)
接收方清单（8个主题）
| # | Topic | Key Questions | Risk if Missing |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Definition Scope | Is confidential info bounded? Is there a marking requirement? | Overbroad definition traps all shared information |
| 2 | Standard Carveouts | Are all 5 carveouts present and properly drafted? | Missing carveouts restrict legitimate business activities |
| 3 | Permitted Use | Is use restricted to stated purpose? Can we share with advisors? | Overly restrictive use limits may impede evaluation |
| 4 | Residuals | Is there a residuals clause? Is it narrow or broad? | Broad residuals clause benefits; narrow or absent protects discloser |
| 5 | Return/Destruction | Return or destroy option? Retention exception for backups? | No retention exception is impractical for electronic data |
| 6 | Term & Survival | Reasonable term? Reasonable survival period? Termination right? | Perpetual obligations are burdensome |
| 7 | Remedies | Injunctive relief only? Or liquidated damages/indemnification? | Excessive remedies shift risk disproportionately |
| 8 | Problematic Provisions | Non-compete? Non-solicitation? IP assignment? Audit rights? | These provisions have no place in a standard NDA |
| # | 主题 | 核心问题 | 缺失风险 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 定义范围 | 保密信息是否有明确边界？是否有标记要求？ | 过于宽泛的定义会将所有共享信息纳入保密范畴 |
| 2 | 标准例外条款 | 是否包含全部5项标准例外条款且起草恰当？ | 缺失例外条款会限制合法业务活动 |
| 3 | 允许用途 | 使用是否限于约定目的？能否与顾问共享？ | 过于严格的使用限制可能阻碍评估工作 |
| 4 | 剩余权利 | 是否有剩余权利条款？范围是窄还是宽？ | 宽泛的剩余权利条款对接收方有利；狭窄或缺失则对披露方有利 |
| 5 | 返还/销毁 | 是否有返还或销毁选项？是否有备份保留例外？ | 无保留例外对于电子数据来说不切实际 |
| 6 | 期限与存续 | 期限是否合理？存续期是否合理？是否有终止权？ | 永久义务会造成沉重负担 |
| 7 | 救济措施 | 仅有无禁令救济？还是有约定违约金/赔偿？ | 过度的救济措施会不成比例地转移风险 |
| 8 | 有问题的条款 | 竞业禁止？禁止招揽？知识产权转让？审计权？ | 这些条款不属于标准NDA范畴 |
Discloser Checklist (5 Topics)
披露方清单（5个主题）
| # | Topic | Key Questions | Risk if Missing |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Definition Breadth | Does definition cover all information we will share? All forms? | Gaps in definition leave information unprotected |
| 2 | Obligation Strength | Standard of care adequate? Written agreements from recipients? | Weak obligations increase risk of unauthorized disclosure |
| 3 | Remedies | Injunctive relief available? Is it meaningful in this jurisdiction? | Without adequate remedies, NDA is unenforceable in practice |
| 4 | Duration | Is the term long enough? Does survival cover our exposure window? | Short terms may expire before information loses value |
| 5 | Recipient Limits | Who can receive? Is need-to-know enforced? Downstream binding? | Unrestricted sharing exposes information to unauthorized parties |
| # | 主题 | 核心问题 | 缺失风险 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 定义广度 | 定义是否涵盖所有我们将共享的信息？所有形式？ | 定义漏洞会导致信息不受保护 |
| 2 | 义务强度 | 注意标准是否足够？接收方是否有书面协议？ | 薄弱的义务会增加未经授权披露的风险 |
| 3 | 救济措施 | 是否可获得禁令救济？在该司法管辖区是否有效？ | 若无充分救济措施，NDA实际上无法执行 |
| 4 | 期限 | 期限是否足够长？存续期是否覆盖我们的风险暴露窗口？ | 短期限可能在信息失去价值前到期 |
| 5 | 接收方限制 | 谁可以接收信息？是否执行按需知悉原则？下游是否有约束力？ | 无限制共享会使信息暴露给未经授权的方 |
Variation Callouts
场景差异说明
Different NDA contexts require different review emphasis.
不同的NDA场景需要不同的审查重点。
M&A Context
并购（M&A）场景
| Additional Concern | Reason | Recommended Position |
|---|---|---|
| Standstill provision | Prevents hostile acquisition moves during due diligence | Accept if mutual and time-limited (12-18 months) |
| Non-solicitation of employees | Standard in M&A NDAs | Accept if limited to key employees for 12 months |
| Broader definition | M&A requires extensive information sharing | Accept broader definition with strong carveouts |
| Longer survival | Sensitive strategic information shared | 3-5 year survival is appropriate |
| Residuals clause sensitivity | Competitive intelligence at stake | Resist residuals clause or narrow significantly |
| 额外关注点 | 原因 | 推荐立场 |
|---|---|---|
| 停滞条款 | 防止尽职调查期间的敌意收购行动 | 若为双向且有时间限制（12-18个月）则可接受 |
| 禁止招揽员工 | 并购NDA中的标准条款 | 若限于关键员工且期限为12个月则可接受 |
| 更宽泛的定义 | 并购需要大量信息共享 | 接受更宽泛的定义，但需附带严格的例外条款 |
| 更长的存续期 | 共享的敏感战略信息 | 3-5年的存续期较为合适 |
| 剩余权利条款敏感性 | 涉及竞争情报 | 抵制剩余权利条款或大幅缩小其范围 |
Employment Context
雇佣场景
| Additional Concern | Reason | Recommended Position |
|---|---|---|
| Invention assignment | Employer IP ownership | Separate from NDA; use invention assignment agreement |
| Post-employment obligations | Obligations after employment ends | Limit survival to 2 years; ensure enforceability |
| Scope of work product | What the employee creates | Define in employment agreement, not NDA |
| Non-compete enforceability | Varies by jurisdiction | Review local law before including; may be void |
| 额外关注点 | 原因 | 推荐立场 |
|---|---|---|
| 发明转让 | 雇主拥有知识产权 | 与NDA分离；使用发明转让协议 |
| 离职后义务 | 雇佣结束后的义务 | 将存续期限制在2年；确保可执行性 |
| 工作成果范围 | 员工创造的内容 | 在雇佣协议中定义，而非NDA |
| 竞业禁止的可执行性 | 因司法管辖区而异 | 纳入前先审查当地法律；可能无效 |
VC / Fundraising Context
风投（VC）/融资场景
| Additional Concern | Reason | Recommended Position |
|---|---|---|
| Investor portfolio conflicts | VC may have portfolio companies in same space | Include portfolio company exclusion or conflict provision |
| Residuals clause | VCs see many similar pitches | Resist; protect trade secrets and specific data |
| Term limitations | VCs want short obligations | 2-3 year term acceptable; ensure adequate survival |
| Definition scope | Founders want maximum protection | Balance with investor need for portfolio flexibility |
| 额外关注点 | 原因 | 推荐立场 |
|---|---|---|
| 投资者投资组合冲突 | VC可能有同一领域的投资组合公司 | 加入投资组合公司排除或冲突条款 |
| 剩余权利条款 | VC会接触许多类似的融资提案 | 抵制该条款；保护商业秘密和特定数据 |
| 期限限制 | VC希望义务期限较短 | 2-3年期限可接受；确保足够的存续期 |
| 定义范围 | 创始人希望获得最大保护 | 在创始人需求与投资者的投资组合灵活性之间取得平衡 |
Risk Rating Guide
风险评级指南
| Rating | Criteria | Action | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|
| HIGH (H) | Could result in material legal or financial exposure; deal-breaker potential | Must resolve before signing | Pre-signing |
| MEDIUM (M) | Creates meaningful risk but manageable; strong preference to resolve | Should resolve; accept with documented risk if necessary | Within 30 days |
| LOW (L) | Minor preference; improves agreement but not material | Nice to resolve; concede if needed for higher-priority wins | Within 90 days |
| 评级 | 标准 | 行动 | 时间线 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 高（H） | 可能导致重大法律或财务风险；可能成为交易障碍 | 签署前必须解决 | 签署前 |
| 中（M） | 产生有意义的风险但可管控；强烈建议解决 | 应解决；若必要，可记录风险后接受 | 30天内 |
| 低（L） | 轻微偏好；可改善协议但不影响实质 | 最好解决；若为更高优先级事项可让步 | 90天内 |
Risk Rating by Issue Type
按问题类型划分的风险评级
| Issue Type | Typical Rating | Escalation |
|---|---|---|
| Missing carveout (any) | M-H | Counsel |
| Overbroad definition | M | Counsel |
| Non-compete/non-solicitation | H | Senior counsel |
| IP assignment | H | Senior counsel |
| Residuals clause (broad) | M | Counsel |
| Perpetual obligations | M-H | Counsel |
| No return/destruction | M | Counsel |
| Liquidated damages | H | Senior counsel |
| Missing governing law | L-M | Counsel |
| One-sided obligations | M | Counsel |
| 问题类型 | 典型评级 | 升级方式 |
|---|---|---|
| 缺失例外条款（任意） | M-H | 提交法务 |
| 过于宽泛的定义 | M | 提交法务 |
| 竞业禁止/禁止招揽 | H | 提交资深法务 |
| 知识产权转让 | H | 提交资深法务 |
| 宽泛的剩余权利条款 | M | 提交法务 |
| 永久义务 | M-H | 提交法务 |
| 无返还/销毁条款 | M | 提交法务 |
| 约定违约金 | H | 提交资深法务 |
| 缺失准据法 | L-M | 提交法务 |
| 单方面义务 | M | 提交法务 |
Common Pitfalls
常见误区
| Pitfall | Impact | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Reviewing without knowing your perspective | Recipient and discloser have opposing interests on many clauses | Always set |
| Treating the NDA as "just a formality" | Missing problematic provisions that create real obligations | Run full clause review on every NDA, regardless of perceived importance |
| Negotiating clause-by-clause in document order | Wastes time on early low-priority clauses; may not reach critical issues | Prioritize by risk rating; address H items first |
| Accepting "standard" NDAs without review | Every organization's "standard" is different; one party's standard favors that party | No NDA is truly standard; always review |
| Ignoring context (M&A, employment, VC) | Standard NDA review misses context-specific risks | Use variation callouts for specialized contexts |
| Not preparing fallback positions | Stuck when counterparty rejects preferred redline | Prepare preferred + fallback for every H and M item |
| Signing before resolving H-rated issues | Creates material legal exposure | Require all H items resolved or executive sign-off |
| 误区 | 影响 | 解决方法 |
|---|---|---|
| 未明确自身视角就进行审查 | 接收方和披露方在许多条款上利益对立 | 始终设置 |
| 将NDA视为“只是走个形式” | 忽略会产生实际义务的有问题条款 | 对每一份NDA都进行完整的条款审查，无论其看似重要与否 |
| 按文档顺序逐条谈判 | 在早期低优先级条款上浪费时间；可能无法触及关键问题 | 按风险评级优先处理；先解决高风险项 |
| 未经审查就接受“标准”NDA | 每个组织的“标准”都不同；一方的标准会偏向该方 | 没有真正的标准NDA；始终进行审查 |
| 忽略场景（并购、雇佣、风投） | 标准NDA审查会遗漏场景特定风险 | 针对特殊场景使用场景差异说明 |
| 未准备备选立场 | 当对方拒绝推荐的修订标记时陷入僵局 | 为每个高、中风险项准备推荐方案+备选方案 |
| 未解决高风险问题就签署 | 造成重大法律风险 | 要求所有高风险问题解决或获得高管签字认可 |
Troubleshooting
故障排除
| Problem | Cause | Solution |
|---|---|---|
| All issues rated LOW | NDA is genuinely well-drafted, or text extraction lost key sections | Manually verify critical sections (definition, carveouts, remedies) are in the input file |
| Perspective flag has no effect | Tool adjusts weighting, not detection; same issues found either way | Perspective changes risk ratings and recommendations, not issue detection |
| Too many issues generated | NDA is non-standard or poorly drafted | Focus on H-rated issues first; use the issue log as a negotiation roadmap |
| Script misses embedded provisions | Non-compete or IP clause hidden in definitions or general provisions | Search full document for "compete", "assign", "license", "solicit" manually |
| Output format does not match template | Tool outputs structured data, not final deliverable | Use |
| 问题 | 原因 | 解决方案 |
|---|---|---|
| 所有问题均被评为低风险 | NDA确实起草良好，或文本提取丢失了关键部分 | 手动验证输入文件中是否包含关键部分（定义、例外条款、救济措施） |
| 视角参数无效果 | 工具调整的是权重，而非检测；无论哪种视角都会发现相同问题 | 视角会改变风险评级和建议，而非问题检测结果 |
| 生成的问题过多 | NDA非标准或起草糟糕 | 先聚焦高风险问题；将问题日志作为谈判路线图 |
| 脚本遗漏嵌入式条款 | 竞业禁止或知识产权条款隐藏在定义或通用条款中 | 手动在整个文档中搜索“compete”、“assign”、“license”、“solicit” |
| 输出格式与模板不符 | 工具输出结构化数据，而非最终交付物 | 使用 |
Success Criteria
成功标准
- Complete clause-by-clause review in under 15 minutes: Automated analysis replaces 1-2 hours of manual review.
- Zero missed HIGH-risk issues: Every non-compete, IP assignment, and missing carveout is identified.
- Actionable redlines for every H and M issue: Each issue has preferred position, fallback, and rationale.
- Clear ownership assignment: Every issue has a designated owner (legal, business, executive).
- Perspective-appropriate recommendations: Recipient and discloser reviews produce different risk weightings.
- Context-aware review: M&A, employment, and VC variations are flagged when relevant.
- 15分钟内完成逐条完整审查： 自动化分析替代1-2小时的手动审查。
- 零遗漏高风险问题： 识别所有竞业禁止、知识产权转让和缺失的例外条款。
- 每个高、中风险问题都有可执行的修订标记： 每个问题都有推荐立场、备选方案和理由。
- 明确的负责人分配： 每个问题都有指定负责人（法务、业务、高管）。
- 符合视角的建议： 接收方和披露方审查会产生不同的风险权重。
- 场景感知审查： 相关时会标记并购、雇佣和风投场景的差异。
Scope & Limitations
范围与限制
Covers:
- Deep clause-by-clause NDA analysis with pattern matching and risk classification
- Perspective-based review (Recipient vs. Discloser)
- Issue log generation with redlines, fallbacks, rationale, owners, and deadlines
- Detection of 7 immediate red flags for triage
- Context variation awareness (M&A, Employment, VC)
Does NOT cover:
- Legal advice -- this tool supports review, it does not replace qualified legal counsel
- Rapid triage -- use for quick GREEN/YELLOW/RED screening
nda-triage - Contract types beyond NDAs -- use for general commercial agreements
contract-review - Jurisdiction-specific enforceability analysis -- requires local counsel assessment
- Non-English NDAs -- pattern matching is English-language only
涵盖内容：
- 通过模式匹配和风险分类进行NDA逐条深度分析
- 基于视角的审查（接收方vs披露方）
- 生成包含修订标记、备选方案、理由、负责人和截止日期的问题日志
- 检测7种用于分类筛选的即时危险信号
- 场景差异感知（并购、雇佣、风投）
不涵盖内容：
- 法律建议 -- 本工具仅支持审查，不能替代合格的法律顾问
- 快速分类筛选 -- 使用进行快速绿/黄/红筛选
nda-triage - NDA以外的合同类型 -- 使用审查一般商业协议
contract-review - 司法管辖区特定的可执行性分析 -- 需要当地法务评估
- 非英文NDA -- 模式匹配仅支持英文
Anti-Patterns
反模式
| Anti-Pattern | Why It Fails | Better Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Running deep review without triage first | Wastes time on detailed analysis of NDAs that should be rejected outright (RED triage) | Always run |
| Using Recipient perspective for both sides | Recipient perspective minimizes obligations and maximizes carveouts, which is wrong if you are the discloser | Always set the correct |
| Accepting all LOW-rated issues without review | Some LOW issues are low-risk individually but create cumulative exposure when combined | Review the full issue log for interaction effects; multiple LOW issues in the same area may compound to MEDIUM |
| Skipping the variation callouts for specialized contexts | Standard NDA review misses M&A standstill provisions, employment invention assignment, VC portfolio conflicts | Check the variation callouts section for your specific deal context |
| 反模式 | 失败原因 | 更好的方法 |
|---|---|---|
| 未进行分类筛选就直接进行深度审查 | 在应直接拒绝的NDA（红色分类）上浪费时间进行详细分析 | 始终先运行 |
| 对双方都使用接收方视角 | 接收方视角会最小化义务并最大化例外条款，若你是披露方则不合适 | 始终根据自身角色设置正确的 |
| 未经审查就接受所有低风险问题 | 一些低风险问题单独看风险低，但组合起来会累积风险 | 审查完整问题日志以查看相互影响；同一领域的多个低风险问题可能升级为中风险 |
| 跳过特殊场景的差异说明 | 标准NDA审查会遗漏并购停滞条款、雇佣发明转让、风投投资组合冲突 | 查看场景差异说明以适配你的特定交易场景 |
Tool Reference
工具参考
nda_clause_reviewer.py
nda_clause_reviewer.py
Purpose: Performs deep clause-by-clause NDA analysis. Detects overbroad definitions, missing carveouts, problematic provisions, and generates an issue log with redlines, fallbacks, rationale, owners, and deadlines.
Usage:
bash
python scripts/nda_clause_reviewer.py <nda_file> [--perspective PERSPECTIVE] [--json] [--output FILE]Flags:
| Flag | Short | Default | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| (positional) | Path to NDA text file (.txt or .md) | |
| | | Review perspective: |
| off | Output in JSON format | |
| | (stdout) | Write output to file |
Example Output (JSON):
json
{
"file": "vendor_nda.txt",
"perspective": "recipient",
"issues": [
{
"id": 1,
"clause": "Definition of Confidential Information",
"issue": "Overbroad definition with no marking requirement",
"risk": "H",
"preferred_redline": "Narrow to information marked Confidential or confirmed in writing within 10 days",
"fallback": "Add marking requirement for written; 10-day confirmation for oral",
"rationale": "Overbroad definition traps all shared information as confidential",
"owner": "legal",
"deadline": "pre-signing"
}
],
"summary": {
"total_issues": 5,
"high": 2,
"medium": 2,
"low": 1
}
}Example Output (Text):
NDA CLAUSE REVIEW — ISSUE LOG
==============================
File: vendor_nda.txt
Perspective: Recipient
Issues Found: 5 (H:2 M:2 L:1)
# Risk Clause Issue
1 H Definition of Confidential Info Overbroad definition; no marking requirement
Preferred: Narrow to marked information with 10-day oral confirmation
Fallback: Add marking requirement for written; 10-day confirmation for oral
Rationale: Overbroad definition traps all shared information
Owner: legal | Deadline: pre-signing
2 H Standard Carveouts Missing independent development carveout
Preferred: Add standard independent development exception
Fallback: Add with documentary evidence requirement
Rationale: Missing carveout blocks internal R&D
Owner: legal | Deadline: pre-signing用途： 进行NDA逐条深度分析。检测过于宽泛的定义、缺失的例外条款、有问题的条款，并生成包含修订标记、备选方案、理由、负责人和截止日期的问题日志。
用法：
bash
python scripts/nda_clause_reviewer.py <nda_file> [--perspective PERSPECTIVE] [--json] [--output FILE]参数：
| 参数 | 简写 | 默认值 | 描述 |
|---|---|---|---|
| (位置参数) | NDA文本文件路径（.txt或.md） | |
| | | 审查视角： |
| 关闭 | 以JSON格式输出 | |
| | (标准输出) | 将输出写入文件 |
示例输出（JSON）：
json
{
"file": "vendor_nda.txt",
"perspective": "recipient",
"issues": [
{
"id": 1,
"clause": "Definition of Confidential Information",
"issue": "Overbroad definition with no marking requirement",
"risk": "H",
"preferred_redline": "Narrow to information marked Confidential or confirmed in writing within 10 days",
"fallback": "Add marking requirement for written; 10-day confirmation for oral",
"rationale": "Overbroad definition traps all shared information as confidential",
"owner": "legal",
"deadline": "pre-signing"
}
],
"summary": {
"total_issues": 5,
"high": 2,
"medium": 2,
"low": 1
}
}示例输出（文本）：
NDA CLAUSE REVIEW — ISSUE LOG
==============================
File: vendor_nda.txt
Perspective: Recipient
Issues Found: 5 (H:2 M:2 L:1)
# Risk Clause Issue
1 H Definition of Confidential Info Overbroad definition; no marking requirement
Preferred: Narrow to marked information with 10-day oral confirmation
Fallback: Add marking requirement for written; 10-day confirmation for oral
Rationale: Overbroad definition traps all shared information
Owner: legal | Deadline: pre-signing
2 H Standard Carveouts Missing independent development carveout
Preferred: Add standard independent development exception
Fallback: Add with documentary evidence requirement
Rationale: Missing carveout blocks internal R&D
Owner: legal | Deadline: pre-signing