
NDA Triage
OfficialFreeStreamline your NDA screening process efficiently.
Free · Opens the source repo
What NDA Triage does
The NDA Triage skill allows users to quickly assess incoming Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) and classify them into three categories: GREEN for standard approval, YELLOW for counsel review, and RED for full legal review. This skill is particularly useful for sales and business development teams who regularly handle NDAs and need a reliable method to determine the appropriate level of scrutiny required before signing. By automating the initial review process, it helps ensure that NDAs meet organizational standards and legal requirements without requiring extensive legal input at the outset.
To utilize the NDA Triage skill, users can submit NDAs in various formats, including file uploads (PDF, DOCX), URLs, or pasted text. The skill then references a predefined NDA playbook that outlines specific screening criteria tailored to the organization’s needs. If no playbook is available, it defaults to standard market practices, ensuring that even without custom settings, the assessment remains grounded in widely accepted norms.
The skill evaluates key components of the NDA, such as the structure, obligations of the parties, definitions of confidential information, and any problematic provisions. By following a systematic checklist, it flags any issues that may require further legal scrutiny. This structured approach not only saves time but also minimizes the risk of overlooking critical legal considerations that could lead to complications later on.
NDA Triage is designed for legal teams, business development professionals, and anyone involved in contract management who needs to streamline their NDA review process. It is important to note that while the skill aids in the triage process, it does not replace the need for qualified legal professionals to conduct a thorough review before any agreements are finalized.
When to use it
Use this skill when receiving new NDAs to efficiently determine their classification and necessary review level.
When not to use it
This skill is not suitable for complex legal analyses or situations requiring detailed legal advice.
What you can build with it
Sales Team NDA Submission
A sales team receives multiple NDAs from potential partners and uses the skill to quickly categorize each for appropriate review.
Business Development Screening
Business development professionals can streamline their NDA screening process, allowing them to focus on negotiations rather than legal details.
Legal Team Workflow Integration
Legal teams can integrate this skill into their workflow to enhance efficiency in the initial stages of NDA review.
How to install NDA Triage
View source1. Install with the skills CLI
npx skills add anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins/triage-nda --agent claude-code2. Or install it manually
Download the skill folder and drop it into ~/.claude/skills/ for all projects, or .claude/skills/ to scope it to one repo. Restart Claude Code so it picks up the new skill.
Anthropic's agentic coding CLI, and the reference implementation of Agent Skills. Drop a skill folder into ~/.claude/skills and Claude Code loads it automatically whenever a task matches the skill's description. Claude Code docs
Inside SKILL.md
Written by anthropics/triage-nda -- NDA Pre-Screening
If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see CONNECTORS.md.
Triage the NDA: @$1
Rapidly triage incoming NDAs against standard screening criteria. Classify the NDA for routing: standard approval, counsel review, or full legal review.
Important: You assist with legal workflows but do not provide legal advice. All analysis should be reviewed by qualified legal professionals before being relied upon.
Invocation
/triage-nda
Workflow
Step 1: Accept the NDA
Accept the NDA in any format:
- File upload: PDF, DOCX, or other document format
- URL: Link to the NDA in a document system
- Pasted text: NDA text pasted directly
If no NDA is provided, prompt the user to supply one.
Step 2: Load NDA Playbook
Look for NDA screening criteria in local settings (e.g., legal.local.md).
The NDA playbook should define:
- Mutual vs. unilateral requirements
- Acceptable term lengths
- Required carveouts
- Prohibited provisions
- Organization-specific requirements
If no NDA playbook is configured:
- Proceed with reasonable market-standard defaults
- Note clearly that defaults are being used
- Defaults applied:
- Mutual obligations required (unless the organization is only disclosing)
- Term: 2-3 years standard, up to 5 years for trade secrets
- Standard carveouts required: independently developed, publicly available, rightfully received from third party, required by law
- No non-solicitation or non-compete provisions
- No residuals clause (or narrowly scoped if present)
- Governing law in a reasonable commercial jurisdiction
Step 3: Quick Screen
Evaluate the NDA against each screening criterion systematically.
1. Agreement Structure
- Type identified: Mutual NDA, Unilateral (disclosing party), or Unilateral (receiving party)
- Appropriate for context: Is the NDA type appropriate for the business relationship? (e.g., mutual for exploratory discussions, unilateral for one-way disclosures)
- Standalone agreement: Confirm the NDA is a standalone agreement, not a confidentiality section embedded in a larger commercial agreement
2. Definition of Confidential Information
- Reasonable scope: Not overbroad (avoid "all information of any kind whether or not marked as confidential")
- Marking requirements: If marking is required, is it workable? (Written marking within 30 days of oral disclosure is standard)
- Exclusions present: Standard exclusions defined (see Standard Carveouts below)
- No problematic inclusions: Does not define publicly available information or independently developed materials as confidential
3. Obligations of Receiving Party
- Standard of care: Reasonable care or at least the same care as for own confidential information
- Use restriction: Limited to the stated purpose
- Disclosure restriction: Limited to those with need to know who are bound by similar obligations
- No onerous obligations: No requirements that are impractical (e.g., encrypting all communications, maintaining physical logs)
4. Standard Carveouts
All of the following carveouts should be present:
- Public knowledge: Information that is or becomes publicly available through no fault of the receiving party
- Prior possession: Information already known to the receiving party before disclosure
- Independent development: Information independently developed without use of or reference to confidential information
- Third-party receipt: Information rightfully received from a third party without restriction
- Legal compulsion: Right to disclose when required by law, regulation, or legal process (with notice to the disclosing party where legally permitted)
5. Permitted Disclosures
- Employees: Can share with employees who need to know
- Contractors/advisors: Can share with contractors, advisors, and professional consultants under similar confidentiality obligations
- Affiliates: Can share with affiliates (if needed for the business purpose)
- Legal/regulatory: Can disclose as required by law or regulation
6. Term and Duration
- Agreement term: Reasonable period for the business relationship (1-3 years is standard)
- Confidentiality survival: Obligations survive for a reasonable period after termination (2-5 years is standard; trade secrets may be longer)
- Not perpetual: Avoid indefinite or perpetual confidentiality obligations (exception: trade secrets, which may warrant longer protection)
7. Return and Destruction
- Obligation triggered: On termination or upon request
- Reasonable scope: Return or destroy confidential information and all copies
- Retention exception: Allows retention of copies required by law, regulation, or internal compliance/backup policies
- Certification: Certification of destruction is reasonable; sworn affidavit is onerous
8. Remedies
- Injunctive relief: Acknowledgment that breach may cause irreparable harm and equitable relief may be appropriate is standard
- No pre-determined damages: Avoid liquidated damages clauses in NDAs
- Not one-sided: Remedies provisions apply equally to both parties (in mutual NDAs)
9. Problematic Provisions to Flag
- No non-solicitation: NDA should not contain employee non-solicitation provisions
- No non-compete: NDA should not contain non-compete provisions
- No exclusivity: NDA should not restrict either party from entering similar discussions with others
- No standstill: NDA should not contain standstill or similar restrictive provisions (unless M&A context)
- No residuals clause (or narrowly scoped): If a residuals clause is present, it should be limited to information retained in unaided memory of individuals and should not apply to trade secrets or patented information
- No IP assignment or license: NDA should not grant any intellectual property rights
- No audit rights: Unusual in standard NDAs
10. Governing Law and Jurisdiction
- Reasonable jurisdiction: A well-established commercial jurisdiction
- Consistent: Governing law and jurisdiction should be in the same or related jurisdictions
- No mandatory arbitration (in standard NDAs): Litigation is generally preferred for NDA disputes
Step 4: Classify
Based on the screening results, assign a classification:
GREEN -- Standard Approval
All of the following must be true:
- NDA is mutual (or unilateral in the appropriate direction)
- All standard carveouts are present
- Term is within standard range (1-3 years, survival 2-5 years)
- No non-solicitation, non-compete, or exclusivity provisions
- No residuals clause, or residuals clause is narrowly scoped
- Reasonable governing law jurisdiction
- Standard remedies (no liquidated damages)
- Permitted disclosures include employees, contractors, and advisors
- Return/destruction provisions include retention exception for legal/compliance
- Definition of confidential information is reasonably scoped
Routing: Approve via standard delegation of authority. No counsel review required.
- Action: Proceed to signature with standard delegation of authority
YELLOW -- Counsel Review Needed
One or more of the following are present, but the NDA is not fundamentally problematic:
- Definition of confidential information is broader than preferred but not unreasonable
- Term is longer than standard but within market range (e.g., 5 years for agreement term, 7 years for survival)
- Missing one standard carveout that could be added without difficulty
- Residuals clause present but narrowly scoped to unaided memory
- Governing law in an acceptable but non-preferred jurisdiction
- Minor asymmetry in a mutual NDA (e.g., one party has slightly broader permitted disclosures)
- Marking requirements present but workable
- Return/destruction lacks explicit retention exception (likely implied but should be added)
- Unusual but non-harmful provisions (e.g., obligation to notify of potential breach)
Routing: Flag specific issues for counsel review. Counsel can likely resolve with minor redlines in a single review pass.
- Action: Counsel can likely resolve in a single review pass
RED -- Significant Issues
One or more of the following are present:
- Unilateral when mutual is required (or wrong direction for the relationship)
- Missing critical carveouts (especially independent development or legal compulsion)
- Non-solicitation or non-compete provisions embedded in the NDA
- Exclusivity or standstill provisions without appropriate business context
- Unreasonable term (10+ years, or perpetual without trade secret justification)
- Overbroad definition that could capture public information or independently developed materials
- Broad residuals clause that effectively creates a license to use confidential information
- IP assignment or license grant hidden in the NDA
- Liquidated damages or penalty provisions
- Audit rights without reasonable scope or notice requirements
- Highly unfavorable jurisdiction with mandatory arbitration
- The document is not actually an NDA (contains substantive commercial terms, exclusivity, or other obligations beyond confidentiality)
Routing: Full legal review required. Do not sign. Requires negotiation, counterproposal with the organization's standard form NDA, or rejection.
- Action: Do not sign; requires negotiation or counterproposal
Step 5: Generate Triage Report
Output a structured report:
## NDA Triage Report
**Classification**: [GREEN / YELLOW / RED]
**Parties**: [party names]
**Type**: [Mutual / Unilateral (disclosing) / Unilateral (receiving)]
**Term**: [duration]
**Governing Law**: [jurisdiction]
**Review Basis**: [Playbook / Default Standards]
## Screening Results
| Criterion | Status | Notes |
|-----------|--------|-------|
| Mutual Obligations | [PASS/FLAG/FAIL] | [details] |
| Definition Scope | [PASS/FLAG/FAIL] | [details] |
| Term | [PASS/FLAG/FAIL] | [details] |
| Standard Carveouts | [PASS/FLAG/FAIL] | [details] |
| [etc.] | | |
## Issues Found
### [Issue 1 -- YELLOW/RED]
**What**: [description]
**Risk**: [what could go wrong]
**Suggested Fix**: [specific language or approach]
[Repeat for each issue]
## Recommendation
[Specific next step: approve, send for review with specific notes, or reject/counter]
## Next Steps
1. [Action item 1]
2. [Action item 2]
Step 6: Routing Suggestion
Based on the classification, recommend the appropriate next step:
| Classification | Recommended Action | Typical Timeline |
|---|---|---|
| GREEN | Approve and route for signature per delegation of authority | Same day |
| YELLOW | Send to designated reviewer with specific issues flagged | 1-2 business days |
| RED | Engage counsel for full review; prepare counterproposal or standard form | 3-5 business days |
For YELLOW and RED classifications:
- Identify the specific person or role that should review (if the organization has defined routing rules)
- Include a brief summary of issues suitable for the reviewer to quickly understand the key points
- If the organization has a standard form NDA, recommend sending it as a counterproposal for RED-classified NDAs
Common NDA Issues and Standard Positions
Issue: Overbroad Definition of Confidential Information
Standard position: Confidential information should be limited to non-public information disclosed in connection with the stated purpose, with clear exclusions. Redline approach: Narrow the definition to information that is marked or identified as confidential, or that a reasonable person would understand to be confidential given the nature of the information and circumstances of disclosure.
Issue: Missing Independent Development Carveout
Standard position: Must include a carveout for information independently developed without reference to or use of the disclosing party's confidential information. Risk if missing: Could create claims that internally-developed products or features were derived from the counterparty's confidential information. Redline approach: Add standard independent development carveout.
Issue: Non-Solicitation of Employees
Standard position: Non-solicitation provisions do not belong in NDAs. They are appropriate in employment agreements, M&A agreements, or specific commercial agreements. Redline approach: Delete the provision entirely. If the counterparty insists, limit to targeted solicitation (not general recruitment) and set a short term (12 months).
Issue: Broad Residuals Clause
Standard position: Resist residuals clauses. If required, limit to: (a) general ideas, concepts, know-how, or techniques retained in the unaided memory of individuals who had authorized access; (b) explicitly exclude trade secrets and patentable information; (c) does not grant any IP license. Risk if too broad: Effectively grants a license to use the disclosing party's confidential information for any purpose.
Issue: Perpetual Confidentiality Obligation
Standard position: 2-5 years from disclosure or termination, whichever is later. Trade secrets may warrant protection for as long as they remain trade secrets. Redline approach: Replace perpetual obligation with a defined term. Offer a trade secret carveout for longer protection of qualifying information.
Notes
- If the document is not actually an NDA (e.g., it's labeled as an NDA but contains substantive commercial terms), flag this immediately as a RED and recommend full contract review instead
- For NDAs that are part of a larger agreement (e.g., confidentiality section in an MSA), note that the broader agreement context may affect the analysis
- Always note that this is a screening tool and counsel should review any items the user is uncertain about
Frequently asked questions about NDA Triage
Similar skills
Contract Review
Simplify contract analysis for small businesses.
Vendor Agreement Status
Streamline vendor agreement management across systems.
Contract Review
Streamline contract analysis against your negotiation playbook.
Meeting Briefing
Prepare structured legal meeting briefings and track actions.
Legal Risk Assessment
Evaluate and classify legal risks systematically.
Legal Response
Streamline legal inquiry responses with templates.
