nda-triage▌
anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins · updated Apr 8, 2026
MDX-style export adds YAML metadata + attribution linking explainx.ai and this canonical listing URL.
You are an NDA screening assistant for an in-house legal team. You rapidly evaluate incoming NDAs against standard criteria, classify them by risk level, and provide routing recommendations.
NDA Triage Skill
You are an NDA screening assistant for an in-house legal team. You rapidly evaluate incoming NDAs against standard criteria, classify them by risk level, and provide routing recommendations.
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.
NDA Screening Criteria and Checklist
When triaging an NDA, evaluate each of the following criteria 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
GREEN / YELLOW / RED Classification Rules
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.
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.
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.
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.
Routing Recommendations
After 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
How to use nda-triage on Cursor
AI-first code editor with Composer
Prerequisites
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
- ›Cursor installed and configured on your development machine
- ›Node.js version 16.0+ with npm package manager (verify with
node --version) - ›Active project directory or workspace where you want to add nda-triage
Execute installation command
Execute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
The skills CLI fetches nda-triage from GitHub repository anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins and configures it for Cursor.
Select Cursor when prompted
The CLI will show a list of available agents. Use arrow keys to navigate and space to select Cursor:
Verify installation
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Reload or restart Cursor to activate nda-triage. Access the skill through slash commands (e.g., /nda-triage) or your agent's skill management interface.
Security & Verification Notice
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your development environment. Always verify the publisher's identity, review recent commits, and test in isolated environments before production deployment.
List & Monetize Your Skill
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Use Cases▌
User Story & Requirements Generation
Create detailed user stories, acceptance criteria, and feature specs
Example
Generate user stories for 'password reset feature' with acceptance criteria, edge cases, and test scenarios
Reduce spec writing time by 50%, ensure comprehensive coverage
Competitive Analysis
Research competitors, compare features, identify gaps
Example
Analyze 5 competitor products, create feature comparison matrix, suggest differentiation opportunities
Complete competitive research in 2 hours instead of 2 days
Roadmap Prioritization
Evaluate features using frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano) and create prioritized backlogs
Example
Score 20 feature ideas using RICE framework, generate prioritized roadmap with rationale
Make data-driven prioritization decisions faster
Stakeholder Communication
Draft PRDs, status updates, and stakeholder presentations
Example
Create executive summary of Q3 roadmap, monthly progress report, feature launch announcement
Save 3-5 hours/week on communication overhead
Implementation Guide▌
Prerequisites
- ›Claude Desktop or compatible AI client
- ›Access to product documentation and roadmap tools (Jira, Notion, etc.)
- ›Understanding of product management frameworks (RICE, Jobs-to-be-Done, etc.)
- ›Stakeholder contact information and communication channels
Time Estimate
30-60 minutes to see productivity improvements
Installation Steps
- 1.Install product management skill
- 2.Start with user story generation for known feature
- 3.Progress to competitive analysis: research 2-3 competitors
- 4.Use for roadmap prioritization: apply RICE/ICE scoring
- 5.Draft stakeholder communications and refine based on feedback
- 6.Build template library for recurring PM tasks
- 7.Share effective prompts with product team
Common Pitfalls
- ⚠Not validating competitive research—verify facts before sharing
- ⚠Accepting user stories without involving engineering team
- ⚠Over-relying on frameworks without qualitative judgment
- ⚠Not customizing outputs to company culture and communication style
- ⚠Skipping stakeholder validation of generated requirements
Best Practices▌
✓ Do
- +Validate research and competitive analysis with real data
- +Collaborate with engineering when generating technical requirements
- +Customize frameworks and templates to your company context
- +Use skill for first drafts, refine with stakeholder input
- +Document successful prompt patterns for PM tasks
- +Combine AI efficiency with human judgment and intuition
✗ Don't
- −Don't publish competitive analysis without fact-checking
- −Don't finalize user stories without engineering review
- −Don't make prioritization decisions solely on AI scoring
- −Don't skip customer validation of generated requirements
- −Don't ignore company-specific context and culture
💡 Pro Tips
- ★Provide context: company goals, constraints, customer feedback
- ★Ask for alternatives: 'Show 3 ways to prioritize this roadmap'
- ★Request stakeholder-specific formatting: 'Executive summary vs. engineering spec'
- ★Use skill for 70% generation + 30% customization to company needs
When to Use This▌
✓ Use When
Use for user story writing, competitive research, roadmap prioritization, stakeholder communication, and PRD drafting. Best for reducing repetitive documentation and research work.
✗ Avoid When
Avoid for strategic product vision (requires deep customer empathy), pricing decisions (needs market and financial expertise), or when face-to-face customer discovery is more valuable than speed.
Learning Path▌
- 1Basic: user stories, feature specs, status updates
- 2Intermediate: competitive analysis, prioritization frameworks, PRDs
- 3Advanced: product strategy, go-to-market planning, OKR setting
- 4Expert: product vision, market positioning, business model innovation
Discussion
Product Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)- No comments yet — start the thread.
Ratings
4.7★★★★★73 reviews- ★★★★★Lucas Verma· Dec 28, 2024
Keeps context tight: nda-triage is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
- ★★★★★Zara Gonzalez· Dec 28, 2024
nda-triage reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
- ★★★★★Chinedu Martin· Dec 28, 2024
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: nda-triage is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
- ★★★★★Isabella Abebe· Dec 20, 2024
Useful defaults in nda-triage — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
- ★★★★★Ishan Patel· Dec 20, 2024
nda-triage has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
- ★★★★★Sophia Robinson· Dec 16, 2024
I recommend nda-triage for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
- ★★★★★Chaitanya Patil· Dec 4, 2024
We added nda-triage from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
- ★★★★★Ishan Rao· Dec 4, 2024
I recommend nda-triage for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
- ★★★★★Zaid Martin· Nov 27, 2024
nda-triage has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
- ★★★★★Piyush G· Nov 23, 2024
nda-triage fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
showing 1-10 of 73