triage-nda
Rapidly triage an incoming NDA and classify it as GREEN (standard approval), YELLOW (counsel review), or RED (full legal review). Use when a new NDA arrives from sales or business development, when screening for embedded non-solicits, non-competes, or missing carveouts, or when deciding whether an NDA can be signed under standard delegation.
下記のコマンドをコピーしてターミナル(Mac/Linux)または PowerShell(Windows)に貼り付けてください。 ダウンロード → 解凍 → 配置まで全自動。
mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cd ~/.claude/skills && curl -L -o triage-nda.zip https://jpskill.com/download/22638.zip && unzip -o triage-nda.zip && rm triage-nda.zip
$d = "$env:USERPROFILE\.claude\skills"; ni -Force -ItemType Directory $d | Out-Null; iwr https://jpskill.com/download/22638.zip -OutFile "$d\triage-nda.zip"; Expand-Archive "$d\triage-nda.zip" -DestinationPath $d -Force; ri "$d\triage-nda.zip"
完了後、Claude Code を再起動 → 普通に「動画プロンプト作って」のように話しかけるだけで自動発動します。
💾 手動でダウンロードしたい(コマンドが難しい人向け)
- 1. 下の青いボタンを押して
triage-nda.zipをダウンロード - 2. ZIPファイルをダブルクリックで解凍 →
triage-ndaフォルダができる - 3. そのフォルダを
C:\Users\あなたの名前\.claude\skills\(Win)または~/.claude/skills/(Mac)へ移動 - 4. Claude Code を再起動
⚠️ ダウンロード・利用は自己責任でお願いします。当サイトは内容・動作・安全性について責任を負いません。
🎯 このSkillでできること
下記の説明文を読むと、このSkillがあなたに何をしてくれるかが分かります。Claudeにこの分野の依頼をすると、自動で発動します。
📦 インストール方法 (3ステップ)
- 1. 上の「ダウンロード」ボタンを押して .skill ファイルを取得
- 2. ファイル名の拡張子を .skill から .zip に変えて展開(macは自動展開可)
- 3. 展開してできたフォルダを、ホームフォルダの
.claude/skills/に置く- · macOS / Linux:
~/.claude/skills/ - · Windows:
%USERPROFILE%\.claude\skills\
- · macOS / Linux:
Claude Code を再起動すれば完了。「このSkillを使って…」と話しかけなくても、関連する依頼で自動的に呼び出されます。
詳しい使い方ガイドを見る →- 最終更新
- 2026-05-18
- 取得日時
- 2026-05-18
- 同梱ファイル
- 1
📖 Skill本文(日本語訳)
※ 原文(英語/中国語)を Gemini で日本語化したものです。Claude 自身は原文を読みます。誤訳がある場合は原文をご確認ください。
[スキル名] triage-nda
/triage-nda -- NDA事前スクリーニング
見慣れないプレースホルダーが表示された場合や、どのツールが接続されているかを確認する必要がある場合は、CONNECTORS.mdをご覧ください。
NDAをトリアージする: @$1
受信したNDAを標準的なスクリーニング基準に照らして迅速にトリアージします。NDAをルーティングのために分類します: 標準承認、弁護士レビュー、または完全な法的レビュー。
重要: あなたは法務ワークフローを支援しますが、法的助言を提供するものではありません。すべての分析は、依拠する前に資格のある法務専門家によってレビューされる必要があります。
呼び出し
/triage-nda
ワークフロー
ステップ1: NDAを受領する
NDAを任意の形式で受領します:
- ファイルアップロード: PDF、DOCX、またはその他のドキュメント形式
- URL: ドキュメントシステム内のNDAへのリンク
- 貼り付けられたテキスト: NDAテキストを直接貼り付け
NDAが提供されていない場合は、ユーザーに提供を促します。
ステップ2: NDAプレイブックを読み込む
ローカル設定(例: legal.local.md)でNDAスクリーニング基準を探します。
NDAプレイブックは以下を定義する必要があります:
- 相互 vs. 片務の要件
- 許容される契約期間
- 必須のカーブアウト
- 禁止条項
- 組織固有の要件
NDAプレイブックが設定されていない場合:
- 合理的な市場標準のデフォルトで続行します
- デフォルトが使用されていることを明確に記載します
- 適用されるデフォルト:
- 相互義務が必要(組織が開示のみを行う場合を除く)
- 期間: 標準で2~3年、企業秘密の場合は最大5年
- 標準的なカーブアウトが必要: 独自に開発されたもの、公に入手可能なもの、第三者から正当に受領したもの、法律で義務付けられているもの
- 勧誘禁止または競業禁止条項なし
- 残存条項なし(または、存在する場合は範囲を限定する)
- 合理的な商業管轄区域における準拠法
ステップ3: クイックスクリーン
各スクリーニング基準に対してNDAを体系的に評価します。
1. 契約構造
- [ ] タイプ識別済み: 相互NDA、片務(開示当事者)、または片務(受領当事者)
- [ ] 文脈に適切: NDAのタイプはビジネス関係に適切ですか?(例: 探索的議論には相互、一方的な開示には片務)
- [ ] 独立した契約: NDAが独立した契約であり、より大きな商業契約に組み込まれた秘密保持条項ではないことを確認します
2. 秘密情報の定義
- [ ] 合理的な範囲: 広すぎないこと(「機密としてマークされているか否かにかかわらず、あらゆる種類のすべての情報」を避ける)
- [ ] マーキング要件: マーキングが必要な場合、それは実行可能ですか?(口頭開示から30日以内の書面によるマーキングが標準です)
- [ ] 除外条項の存在: 標準的な除外条項が定義されていること(下記の標準的なカーブアウトを参照)
- [ ] 問題のある包含なし: 公に入手可能な情報や独自に開発された資料を秘密情報として定義していないこと
3. 受領当事者の義務
- [ ] 注意義務の基準: 合理的な注意、または少なくとも自社の秘密情報に対するのと同程度の注意
- [ ] 使用制限: 明記された目的に限定されていること
- [ ] 開示制限: 知る必要があり、同様の義務に拘束されている者に限定されていること
- [ ] 過度な義務なし: 非現実的な要件がないこと(例: すべての通信の暗号化、物理的なログの維持)
4. 標準的なカーブアウト
以下のすべてのカーブアウトが存在する必要があります:
- [ ] 公知: 受領当事者の過失なく公に入手可能であるか、または公に入手可能になる情報
- [ ] 事前所有: 開示前に受領当事者がすでに知っていた情報
- [ ] 独立開発: 秘密情報の使用または参照なしに独自に開発された情報
- [ ] 第三者からの受領: 制限なく第三者から正当に受領した情報
- [ ] 法的強制: 法律、規制、または法的手続きによって要求される場合の開示権(法的に許可されている場合は開示当事者に通知する)
5. 許可される開示
- [ ] 従業員: 知る必要のある従業員と共有できる
- [ ] 請負業者/アドバイザー: 同様の秘密保持義務の下で、請負業者、アドバイザー、および専門コンサルタントと共有できる
- [ ] 関連会社: 関連会社と共有できる(ビジネス目的で必要な場合)
- [ ] 法務/規制: 法律または規制によって要求される場合に開示できる
6. 期間と存続
- [ ] 契約期間: ビジネス関係にとって合理的な期間(1~3年が標準)
- [ ] 秘密保持の存続: 義務は終了後も合理的な期間存続する(2~5年が標準; 企業秘密はより長い場合がある)
- [ ] 永続的ではない: 無期限または永続的な秘密保持義務を避ける(例外: 企業秘密はより長い保護を保証する場合がある)
7. 返還と破棄
- [ ] 義務の発生: 終了時または要求に応じて
- [ ] 合理的な範囲: 秘密情報およびすべてのコピーを返還または破棄する
- [ ] 保持の例外: 法律、規制、または内部のコンプライアンス/バックアップポリシーによって要求されるコピーの保持を許可する
- [ ] 証明: 破棄の証明は合理的です。宣誓供述書は過度です
8. 救済措置
- [ ] 差止命令による救済: 違反が回復不能な損害を引き起こす可能性があり、衡平法上の救済が適切であるという認識は標準です
- [ ] 損害賠償額の事前決定なし: NDAにおける予定損害賠償条項を避ける
- [ ] 一方的ではない: 救済条項は両当事者に等しく適用される(相互NDAの場合)
9. 問題のある条項のフラグ付け
- [ ] 勧誘禁止なし: NDAには従業員の勧誘禁止条項を含めるべきではありません
- [ ] 競業禁止なし: NDAには競業禁止条項を含めるべきではありません
- [ ] 独占禁止なし: NDAは、いずれの当事者も他者との同様の議論を行うことを制限すべきではありません
- [ ] スタンドスティルなし: NDAにはスタンドスティルまたは同様の制限条項を含めるべきではありません(M&Aの文脈を除く)
- [ ] 残存条項なし(または範囲を限定する): 残存条項が存在する場合、それは補助なしで保持される情報に限定されるべきです
(原文がここで切り詰められています)
📜 原文 SKILL.md(Claudeが読む英語/中国語)を展開
/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