Claude for reviewing an nda, done properly.
The tested prompt, the codes that help, and the setup legal pros run. Copy, adapt, ship.
NDAs seem standard but vary wildly. Some have mutual protections; others let the other party claim ownership of anything you discuss. Most people sign without reading.
Three reasons this actually lands.
The prompt, the codes, the fit. Each one on its own is a nice-to-have. Together, they change the workflow.
One tested prompt, copy-paste ready. Rules baked in, placeholders marked, tone locked down. No prompt-engineering trial runs, no back-and-forth.
Prefix with REASON, V=2 for compound effects. Each code is a documented technique, not a magic word.
Tuned for legal workflows. Not a generic template, and not another "you are a helpful assistant" hack.
Without the pattern vs with it.
What the day looks like when you keep winging the prompt, and what it looks like when you stop.
Generic prompt. Claude writes something that could be about anyone, in any industry, from anywhere. Sounds like a template because it is one.
The CLSkills prompt with placeholders for your context. Claude writes it like a specialist who actually knows the work. Publishable after one edit pass.
You paste, Claude answers, you rewrite, you paste again. Ten minutes of back-and-forth per output. Three hours across a batch of five.
Prompt loaded once. You feed the specifics, Claude returns the finished output. Two minutes per, twenty across five. Same tone, same structure, every time.
Middle-of-the-road copy that reads AI-flavoured. Recipients notice. Response rates stay low. You end up rewriting most of it anyway.
A clear breakdown of your NDA's terms with risk ratings. Identifies hidden gotchas like overly broad definitions and residuals clauses that most people miss.
Copy this, replace the placeholders, ship.
Review this NDA. Context: [WHY I'M SIGNING THIS — PARTNERSHIP / EMPLOYMENT / FREELANCE] I am the: [DISCLOSING PARTY / RECEIVING PARTY / MUTUAL] NDA text: [PASTE NDA] Check: 1. **Mutual vs one-way**: Does it protect both parties fairly? 2. **Definition of confidential information**: Is it too broad? Could it capture my pre-existing knowledge? 3. **Exclusions**: Are standard exclusions present? (publicly known, independently developed, etc.) 4. **Duration**: How long does confidentiality last? Is it reasonable? 5. **Non-solicitation/non-compete**: Any hidden non-compete clauses? 6. **Remedies**: What happens if there's a breach? Injunctive relief? Damages? 7. **Residuals clause**: Can they use "retained" information? (This is a common gotcha) 8. **Governing law**: Which jurisdiction? Is it favorable? Flag: ✅ Standard / ⚠️ Negotiate / 🔴 Do not sign without legal review. Note: This is AI analysis, not legal advice.
Replace the [BRACKETED] placeholders with your context.
Stack these prefixes for compound gains.
Prepend one or more of these to the prompt above. Each code is documented on its own page with before and after examples.
Every prompt, once.
The Cheat Sheet is every tested code, with a before and an after.
Nearby prompts for the same role.
Contract review from a lawyer costs $500+ per hour. Most founders and freelancers sign contracts without understanding the liability clauses…
CLAUDE FORLegal research traditionally requires expensive database access and trained paralegals. Founders and small businesses need basic legal under…
CLAUDE FOREvery SaaS needs ToS but hiring a lawyer to draft them costs $2,000-5,000. Most founders either copy someone else's (risky) or skip them ent…
CLAUDE FORCompliance requirements vary by industry, jurisdiction, and company size. Missing a requirement can mean fines, lawsuits, or losing the abil…