Use when the user has a contract loaded and asks a specific question about it — what a clause means, where something is addressed, whether a term is unusual, how a provision compares to standard pract…
Library skill — the default version is maintained in GitHub; edits you make live in your own clone.
Answer the user's specific question about a loaded contract. The answer is precise, cited to the document, and shaped by the question — not by a fixed template.
This skill handles question-driven inquiry against a single contract. It is the right skill when the user has a specific question and wants a specific answer. It is the wrong skill when the user wants a comprehensive review of a contract — for that, route to the appropriate review skill (NDA Review, DPA Checklist Review, MSA-SaaS Review, etc.).
Apply when:
Do not apply when:
When refusing to apply, route the user explicitly: "this is better suited to NDA Review" / "this needs research outside the document" / etc.
The contract you load into this skill may be privileged work product, attorney-client communication, or otherwise subject to confidentiality obligations (NDA, protective order, internal handling rule). The skill's outputs are processed via an external model and are not, on their own, privileged. Before querying this skill on a sensitive document:
The skill requires the document and the question. If the user has a contract loaded but no specific question, ask:
"What would you like to know about this contract?"
Optional inputs (contract_type, perspective, jurisdiction, prior_context) calibrate the answer. The skill should:
contract_type from the document if not provided, and state the inference in answers where it affects calibration ("Treating this as a SaaS MSA based on the structure...").perspective when answering perspective-sensitive questions. "Is this unusual" reads differently from each side. If perspective is not provided and the question is perspective-sensitive, either ask for it or answer from a neutral lens with a note.jurisdiction only when the question depends on it. Most contract Q&A is jurisdiction-agnostic (what does the document say); jurisdiction matters for interpretation and enforceability questions.The workflow has three steps. Each step's behavior depends on the question type identified in step 1.
Read the user's question and classify it into one of these types. The classification drives the output format (adaptive output is the whole reason this step matters).
Type A: Direct lookup. The user wants to know what the contract says about a specific topic. - "Where does the contract address indemnification?" - "What's the term of this agreement?" - "What does Section 7 say?" - "Does this contract have an arbitration clause?" - Output format: direct answer with verbatim quote and citation. Brief.
Type B: Interpretation. The user wants to understand what a clause means, how it operates, or how to apply it. - "What does this indemnification clause actually require?" - "How does the renewal mechanism work?" - "If we terminate, what survives?" - Output format: explanation paragraph with verbatim quote and citation. Plain language; preserve precision.
Type C: Comparison / unusualness. The user wants to know whether a provision is standard, unusual, aggressive, or favorable. - "Is this limitation of liability unusual?" - "How does this non-compete compare to standard?" - "Is the IP assignment scope aggressive?" - Output format: paragraph with context. Quote the provision; describe how it sits relative to typical practice for the contract type; calibrate to perspective if specified.
Type D: Scenario. The user wants to know what would happen in a specified factual scenario. - "What happens if we miss the renewal notice deadline?" - "If they breach, what are our remedies?" - "If we want to assign this contract, what do we have to do?" - Output format: scenario walk-through. Cite the controlling clauses; trace the consequence; note where the answer depends on facts the skill does not have.
Type E: Multi-issue. The user asks about multiple topics in one question, or asks about a topic that has multiple distinct aspects. - "What are the IP and confidentiality terms?" - "Walk me through the termination provisions." - "What protections do we have if they go bankrupt?" - Output format: structured findings. One subsection per issue, each with quote and citation.
Type F: Out of scope. The question is one the skill should not answer (full review, legal research, scenario depending on external facts, opinion). - Route to the appropriate path; do not answer.
If the question does not cleanly fit one type, default to the type that produces the most useful answer (typically B or E).
For every question type except F:
If the relevant content is not in the document, say so explicitly: "The contract does not address this directly. The closest provisions are [X], which suggests [interpretation], but the question is not resolved by the document."
If the relevant content is ambiguous, say so: "The contract is ambiguous on this point. Section X says [quote A], which would suggest [interpretation 1], but Section Y says [quote B], which would suggest [interpretation 2]. The contract does not resolve the conflict."
Format the answer per the question type identified in Step 1.
For all formats: Lead with the answer. The user asked a question; the first sentence should answer it. Citations support the answer; they do not bury it.
Verbatim quotes must be exact. If you cannot quote verbatim, paraphrase explicitly ("The clause says, in substance, ..."). Do not produce reconstructed quotes that look verbatim but aren't.
Citations include the section/clause reference and (where the document supports it) the page reference. Format: [§4.2(b)] or [§4.2(b), p. 7].
Length is proportional to question shape. A Type A question gets a sentence. A Type C question gets a paragraph. A Type E question gets one subsection per issue. Do not pad.
Always identify what you cannot answer. If part of the question is out of scope, or depends on facts not in the document, name that explicitly at the end: "The skill cannot determine [X] from the document alone — that depends on [the user's facts / jurisdiction-specific law / counterparty's behavior]."
Type C (unusualness), Type D (scenario), and Type E (multi-issue) verdicts must carry an explicit confidence band. Type A (direct lookup) and Type B (interpretation) answers do not require a band — the lookup either matches or it doesn't — but a band may be added if the underlying clause is ambiguous.
The bands are:
Every Type C/D/E output ends with a uniform calibration footer:
Calibration: [High / Medium / Low]. Reviewing attorney must verify [the specific quote(s), comparator claim(s), and/or scenario assumption(s)] before relying on this conclusion.
If a band cannot honestly be assigned (insufficient context, contested norm with no clear comparator, document quality issue), use Low and name the source of the uncertainty in the footer.
[Direct answer in one sentence.]
> [Verbatim quote from the contract]
[§ ref, p. ref]
[If relevant: brief note on context, e.g., "This is in the boilerplate section; no special carve-outs apply."]
[Direct answer / interpretation in one or two sentences.]
The relevant clause is [§ ref]:
> [Verbatim quote]
[Two to four sentences explaining how the clause operates: what triggers it, what it requires, what its scope is, what its limits are. Use plain language; preserve legal precision where it matters.]
[If applicable: cross-references to related clauses that affect the interpretation.]
[Direct verdict in one sentence: standard / unusual / aggressive / favorable to [perspective].]
The clause says [§ ref]:
> [Verbatim quote]
[One to two sentences describing how this provision sits relative to typical practice for [contract_type]. What's the typical range? Where does this fall in that range? What's the practical effect of the deviation, if any?]
[If perspective was specified: how this reads from the user's side specifically.]
[If unusual / aggressive: what a more standard version would look like.]
*Calibration: [High / Medium / Low]. Reviewing attorney must verify [the cited clause language and the comparator characterization] before relying on this conclusion.*
[Direct answer in one sentence: under the contract, [the scenario produces this outcome].]
The controlling provisions are:
- **[§ ref]** — [brief description of what this clause does in the scenario]
> [Verbatim quote of the relevant language]
[If multiple clauses operate together, include each. Trace the chain of consequence: clause X triggers, which produces consequence Y, which interacts with clause Z, etc.]
[Note any conditions, exceptions, or facts the answer depends on that are not in the document. Be specific: "This assumes [fact]; if [different fact], the answer changes to [different outcome]."]
*Calibration: [High / Medium / Low]. Reviewing attorney must verify [the controlling clause(s), the scenario assumptions, and any factual/legal contingencies named above] before relying on this conclusion.*
[One- or two-sentence orientation: there are [N] distinct issues here; here's how they break down.]
### [Issue 1]
[Sub-answer for issue 1, formatted appropriately to its type — usually B or C.]
### [Issue 2]
[Sub-answer for issue 2.]
[etc.]
[If the issues interact: a brief closing paragraph identifying the interactions.]
*Calibration: [High / Medium / Low] overall, with per-issue bands where they diverge ([Issue 1]: [band]; [Issue 2]: [band]; ...). Reviewing attorney must verify [the cited clauses for each issue and any cross-issue interactions named above] before relying on this conclusion.*
Question is out of scope. Route the user to the appropriate skill: NDA Review, MSA Review, DPA Checklist Review for full reviews; legal-research skill for jurisdiction-specific questions; etc. Do not attempt to answer.
Question is unanswerable from the document alone. Say so. Identify what would be needed to answer (specific facts, jurisdictional analysis, counterparty's interpretation) and stop. Do not speculate.
Question is ambiguous. Ask one clarifying question rather than guessing: "Are you asking about [interpretation 1] or [interpretation 2]? They produce different answers."
Question requires reading the contract to answer but the document is missing pages, has OCR errors, or is otherwise incomplete. Note the document quality issue: "The document I have appears to be incomplete — [§ X] references [§ Y] which is not in the file. Answer based on what's present, with that caveat."
User asks for legal advice ("should I sign this"). Reframe: "That's a judgment call I won't make for you. What I can tell you about the contract is [factual analysis]. Whether that's acceptable depends on your business judgment about [the trade-off involved]."
User asks "is this clause enforceable in [jurisdiction]" Partial answer: describe what the clause says, note that enforceability depends on jurisdiction-specific law, and route to legal research: "The clause says [X]. Whether that's enforceable in [jurisdiction] depends on [the relevant law]; I can analyze the document but not the law. Recommend a research query."
User asks a perspective-sensitive question ("is this favorable") but no perspective was specified. Ask: "Favorable to whom — your side, the counterparty, or neutral?"
User has been asking many questions about the same document and shows signs of wanting a full review. Suggest the route: "Based on the questions so far, you may want a full review using NDA Review / MSA Review / etc. — that produces a structured report rather than answering question-by-question."
reference/question_classification.md — examples and edge cases for the six question types, with classification heuristics.reference/citation_format.md — conventions for citing within Contract QA outputs.examples/example_type_a_lookup.md — worked example: direct lookup question.examples/example_type_c_unusualness.md — worked example: comparison question with perspective.examples/example_type_d_scenario.md — worked example: scenario walkthrough with conditional outcomes.examples/example_type_e_multi_issue.md — worked example: multi-issue question producing structured findings.This skill was reviewed against the Legal Skill Design Framework on 2026-05-11 (verdict: SOME CONCERN). The following targeted remediations were applied on 2026-05:
version: 1.0.0, last_reviewed: 2026-05, and last_reviewed_by: LegalQuants (QA remediation) declared at the top-level of the frontmatter for downstream provenance and review-cadence tracking.Out of scope for this remediation pass (logged for the next review cycle): explicit Audience declaration, escalation-up triggers for high-stakes calibration calls, alignment of the lq_ai.version field with the new top-level version field, and resolution of the missing test-corpus/ and test-results/ directories referenced by test-plan.md. Technical content (workflow, question classification, citation conventions, worked examples) was preserved without modification.