Skip to content
Back to skills

Workflow Nda Triage Red Yellow Green Sboghossian

ASecurity

Use when an NDA needs a fast risk triage — producing a Green (sign as-is), Yellow (counter-redline with 1–3 points), or Red (reject / renegotiate) verdict in under 90 seconds. Designed for in-house counsel, busy outside counsel, and legal AI copilots handling high-volume NDA inflow. Integrates side detection, quick-check methodology, MENA-specific enforceability flags, and a structured output template including the verdict, rationale, and proposed redline.

  • 85 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 0 views
  • Added October 8, 2026
ai-agentsgogit

Works with

  • cli

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned October 8, 2026

npx -y skills add ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open --skill workflow-nda-triage-red-yellow-green-sboghossian --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Workflow Nda Triage Red Yellow Green Sboghossian?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Workflow Nda Triage Red Yellow Green Sboghossian
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/thomasmoreai-workflow-nda-triage-red-yellow-green-sboghossian/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/thomasmoreai-workflow-nda-triage-red-yellow-green-sboghossian)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

SKILL.md
---
name: workflow-nda-triage-red-yellow-green-sboghossian
title: NDA Triage — Red / Yellow / Green
description: Use when an NDA needs a fast risk triage — producing a Green (sign as-is), Yellow (counter-redline with 1–3 points), or Red (reject / renegotiate) verdict in under 90 seconds. Designed for in-house counsel, busy outside counsel, and legal AI copilots handling high-volume NDA inflow. Integrates side detection, quick-check methodology, MENA-specific enforceability flags, and a structured output template including the verdict, rationale, and proposed redline.
author: sboghossian
author_url: https://github.com/sboghossian/mini-claude-for-legal/tree/main/skills/workflow/workflow-nda-triage-red-yellow-green
license: MIT
version: 0.1.0
execution_mode: open
jurisdiction: general
practice: contracts
language: en
---

# NDA Triage — Red / Yellow / Green

## Purpose

High-volume NDA review is one of the most common legal bottlenecks. This workflow converts an NDA into a verdict — sign, counter, or reject — in under 90 seconds for standard NDAs, with a redline attached for Yellow verdicts. It is the entry point for all NDA review tasks; route to [[workflow-contract-redline-20min]] only for complex or unusual NDAs requiring deeper analysis.

**Success metric**: median time from NDA upload to verdict ≤ 90 seconds.

---

## Inputs

| Input | Required | Notes |
|-------|---------|-------|
| NDA document | Yes | Paste text, upload file, or pull from matter |
| User's side | Yes | Disclosing party, receiving party, or mutual — if unclear, detect from context or ask |
| Purpose of disclosure | Recommended | M&A, hiring, partnership, vendor, client | 
| Jurisdiction | Recommended | Governing law; defaults to DIFC if MENA commercial and not stated |
| Any known sensitivities | Optional | Residuals clauses, duration concerns, scope disputes |

---

## Logic — Step-by-Step

### Step 1: Load NDA

Accept the NDA in any of three ways:
1. **Paste**: user pastes the text directly
2. **Upload**: user uploads a file (PDF, Word)
3. **Matter pull**: pull from the active eFirm matter (if in [[efirm-matter-context]])

If the document is longer than ~5 pages (standard NDA is 2–4 pages), flag that this may be a more substantive agreement than a standard NDA and offer to route to [[workflow-contract-redline-20min]] instead.

### Step 2: Side Detection

The NDA review is asymmetric — the same clause may be acceptable from one side and unacceptable from the other.

**Auto-detect the user's side from:**
- Matter context (if loaded)
- Explicit statement in the prompt ("I'm the receiving party")
- Party names in the NDA (if the user's company name is identifiable)

If side cannot be determined: ask before proceeding. A wrong-side analysis is worse than a delayed one.

**Side implications:**
| Party | Wants | Fears |
|-------|-------|-------|
| Disclosing party | Broad definition of confidential information; long term; no residuals clause; return/destruction obligation | Information leaking; employee poaching; use outside permitted purpose |
| Receiving party | Narrow definition; short term; residuals clause; no onerous return obligation | Overbroad definition capturing pre-existing knowledge; unlimited liability; injunctions for technical breach |
| Mutual NDA | Balanced definition; mutual term; mutual obligations | Same as above, from both directions |

### Step 3: Quick Check — run [[review-nda-quick-check]]

**The 10-point NDA quick-check:**

| # | Check | Green flag | Red / Yellow flag |
|---|-------|-----------|-----------------|
| 1 | **Definition of confidential information** | Reasonable scope; standard exclusions (public domain, independently developed, prior knowledge, required by law) | Overbroad (covers "all information shared"); missing standard exclusions |
| 2 | **Purpose / permitted use** | Narrowly defined; matches the actual business purpose | Vague or absent; "any purpose" |
| 3 | **Term of confidentiality** | 2–5 years for general commercial; indefinite for specific trade secrets (flagged separately) | 10+ years for general information without justification; indefinite for all information |
| 4 | **Return / destruction obligation** | Reasonable; exclude archival/backup copies; exclude legally required retention | Absolute; no exclusion for backups or legal retention |
| 5 | **Residuals clause** | If tech company receiving: acceptable; clear carve-out for residuals retained in unaided memory | Hidden or overbroad residuals clause if disclosing party; unacceptable in sensitive competitive context |
| 6 | **Representatives / permitted disclosure** | Reasonable definition of who can receive (employees, professional advisers, affiliated entities on need-to-know basis) | No restriction on representatives; no obligation to bind representatives |
| 7 | **Governing law and dispute resolution** | Familiar jurisdiction; enforceable forum | Obscure jurisdiction; one-sided dispute resolution; mandatory arbitration with inconvenient seat |
| 8 | **Remedies** | Acknowledges irreparable harm; injunctive relief | Waives right to injunctive relief; disproportionate damages |
| 9 | **Non-solicitation** | If included: reasonable scope and term; limited to direct solicitation | Broad non-solicit covering all employees; prohibits hiring from public market |
| 10 | **IP ownership** | No IP grant or assignment | IP assignment or overly broad license grant for receiving party's use of confidential information |

### Step 4: Risk Classification

Assign a verdict based on the quick-check results:

**GREEN** — Sign as-is, no negotiation needed:
- Condition: all 10 quick-check points pass; no unusual terms; standard market NDA
- Output: short approval note only

**YELLOW** — Counter-redline with 1–3 points:
- Condition: 1–3 issues identified that are addressable with targeted redlines; the NDA is otherwise acceptable
- Output: verdict note + proposed redlines for each issue
- Maximum issues for Yellow: if more than 3 material points need to change, escalate to Red

**RED** — Reject / send back to drafter:
- Condition: fundamental problems (overbroad definition without standard exclusions; unacceptable term; IP assignment risk; suspicious residuals clause for disclosing party; unfamiliar/unfavorable jurisdiction)
- Output: summary memo of issues; recommendation to return to drafter with markup or to reject entirely

---

## Output Template

All verdicts use this format:

```
VERDICT: [GREEN / YELLOW / RED]

QUICK RATIONALE: [1–2 sentences explaining the verdict]

ACTION: [Sign as-is / Counter-redline / Reject and return]

[IF YELLOW — REDLINES:]
Issue 1: [Clause] — [Problem] → [Proposed change]
Issue 2: [Clause] — [Problem] → [Proposed change]
Issue 3: [Clause] — [Problem] → [Proposed change]

[IF RED — MEMO SUMMARY:]
Critical issue 1: [Clause] — [Why it's a red]
Critical issue 2: [Clause] — [Why it's a red]
Recommendation: [Return to drafter with markup / Decline to sign]
```

---

## MENA-Specific NDA Flags

### UAE / Civil Law NDAs

- **Language**: if the NDA governs a UAE-mainland relationship, an Arabic version or Arabic text controls clause may be expected; English-only NDAs are enforceable in UAE courts but Arabic text controls in government context
- **Governing law / courts**: NDA governed by UAE law and UAE courts — acceptable; NDA governed by foreign law with foreign courts — check if there is a legitimate reason; foreign judgments enforceable in UAE under bilateral treaties
- **Penalty clauses**: UAE Civil Code courts may reduce disproportionate penalty/damages provisions to actual loss; state liquidated damages clauses with caution; courts may adjust
- **Non-compete in NDA**: if an NDA contains a non-compete clause, this is atypical and should be flagged — non-competes belong in employment or commercial agreements, not NDAs

### DIFC / Common Law NDAs

- DIFC NDAs follow English law structure; look for the standard Faccenda Chicken implied duty categories
- Injunctions: DIFC Courts readily grant interim injunctions for breach of confidence; receiving party should ensure the NDA does not expand injunctive liability beyond standard
- Boilerplate English NDAs imported for DIFC deals: generally fine if governing law is DIFC or English; watch for US-law-specific provisions (e.g., specific "trade secrets" defined under DTSA) that may not translate

### KSA NDAs

- Arabic text: all important commercial agreements with Saudi parties should have Arabic versions; Arabic text should be stated to control
- Sharia overlay: NDAs are generally Sharia-compliant; no structural issues with standard NDA clauses
- Non-solicitation: Saudi courts may view aggressive employee non-solicitation clauses skeptically given employee rights under Labour Code

### Lebanon NDAs

- Lebanese law of obligations (Code des Obligations et des Contrats) provides underlying framework
- NDAs in Lebanon are generally straightforward; main issue is enforceability of injunctions (Lebanese courts are slower and enforcement more complex than DIFC)
- Currency: if the NDA contains any damages or liquidated damages clauses, specify the currency explicitly

---

## Time Protocol

The 90-second target is for standard 2–4 page NDAs:

| NDA length / complexity | Expected time | Route |
|------------------------|--------------|-------|
| Standard mutual NDA (2–3 pages) | 30–90 seconds | This workflow |
| Standard unilateral NDA (3–5 pages) | 60–120 seconds | This workflow |
| Long-form NDA with unusual provisions (5–10 pages) | 5–10 minutes | [[workflow-contract-redline-20min]] |
| NDA embedded in a larger agreement (JV, M&A) | Use main agreement review | [[workflow-contract-redline-20min]] or [[workflow-full-due-diligence-pack]] |

---

## Optional: eFirm Integration

After triage, offer to log the time entry in eFirm:
- Matter: [active matter name]
- Time: 0.1 units (minimum) for GREEN; 0.2–0.3 units for YELLOW with redline; 0.3–0.5 units for RED with memo
- Description: "NDA triage — [counterparty name] — [VERDICT]"

---

## Related Skills

- [[review-nda-quick-check]]
- [[draft-nda-mutual]]
- [[draft-nda-unilateral]]
- [[workflow-contract-redline-20min]]
- [[output-executive-summary-first]]

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.