Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
待分类只读github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计通过

tech-contract-negotiation技术合同谈判

Agent Skill

tech-contract-negotiation 用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要围绕仓库状态、代码变更或协作事项进行整理时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

461

周安装

19

GitHub Stars

103

下载量

150
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:tech-contract-negotiation(技术合同谈判)
来源仓库:https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills
仓库路径:skills/tech-contract-negotiation
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill tech-contract-negotiation
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill tech-contract-negotiation

简介

用于处理 GitHub 仓库和 Issue 协作信息。

  • 适合围绕代码变更和协作事项进行整理。
  • 可结合原始 README 核验具体功能。
  • 安装前建议确认权限与维护状态。tech-contract-negotiation 属于待分类类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。
  • 注意是否会触发命令执行或文件读写。

SKILL.md

⚠️ EXPERIMENTAL — This skill is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It does NOT constitute legal advice. All responsibility for usage rests with the user. Consult qualified legal professionals before acting on any output.

Tech Contract Negotiation Skill

Overview

Production-ready negotiation toolkit for technology services agreements, professional services contracts, and B2B transactions. Provides a Three-Position Framework (provider-favorable, balanced, client-favorable) for every major provision, Deal-Size Tactics across 5 tiers, Five-Tier Objection Handling, regulatory leverage arguments, and concession roadmaps. Designed for legal counsel, procurement leads, and sales/deal desk teams negotiating technology contracts from $100K to $10M+.

Table of Contents

Tools

1. Negotiation Position Analyzer (scripts/negotiation_position_analyzer.py)

Analyzes contract text and classifies each provision as provider-favorable, balanced, or client-favorable based on keyword patterns and structural analysis. Generates a position map and recommended negotiation priorities.

# Analyze a contract draft
python scripts/negotiation_position_analyzer.py contract_draft.txt

# JSON output for integration
python scripts/negotiation_position_analyzer.py contract_draft.txt --json

# Analyze from a specific party's perspective
python scripts/negotiation_position_analyzer.py contract_draft.txt --perspective client

2. Deal Complexity Scorer (scripts/deal_complexity_scorer.py)

Takes deal parameters and scores complexity across 7 dimensions. Recommends deal tier (1-5), expected timeline, number of rounds, and key focus areas.

# Score deal complexity from parameters file
python scripts/deal_complexity_scorer.py deal_params.json

# JSON output
python scripts/deal_complexity_scorer.py deal_params.json --json

# Override deal value for quick what-if
python scripts/deal_complexity_scorer.py deal_params.json --deal-value 5000000

Reference Guides

ReferencePurpose
references/three_position_framework.mdProvider/balanced/client positions for 5 major provisions with deal-size tactics
references/objection_handling.mdFive-tier objection methodology, prediction matrix, communication templates
references/regulatory_leverage.mdGDPR, DORA, NIS2, SOX leverage arguments, concession roadmap, industry considerations

Workflows

Workflow 1: Pre-Negotiation Assessment

  1. Classify the deal -- Run deal_complexity_scorer.py with deal parameters to determine tier, timeline, and focus areas
  2. Analyze the draft -- Run negotiation_position_analyzer.py on the initial contract to map current positions
  3. Identify gaps -- Compare position map against your target positions from three_position_framework.md
  4. Prepare objection responses -- Review objection_handling.md for predicted objections based on client type
  5. Map regulatory leverage -- Identify applicable frameworks from regulatory_leverage.md

Workflow 2: Active Negotiation

  1. Open with position -- Use the Opening Position Statement template from objection_handling.md
  2. Handle pushback -- Apply Five-Tier Objection Handling: Acknowledge, Market Context, Business Rationale, Alternatives, Bright Lines
  3. Track concessions -- Follow the 4-tier concession roadmap (Easy Gives through Bright Lines)
  4. Re-analyze after redlines -- Run negotiation_position_analyzer.py on each revised draft
  5. Close -- Use Closing the Deal template; verify no Bright Lines were crossed

Workflow 3: Deal Review and Approval

  1. Final position analysis -- Run analyzer on execution-ready draft
  2. Complexity validation -- Confirm final terms match expected deal tier parameters
  3. Regulatory check -- Verify all mandatory regulatory provisions are present
  4. Document concessions -- Record what was traded and why for future negotiations
  5. Approval package -- Combine position map, complexity score, and concession log

Troubleshooting

ProblemCauseSolution
Analyzer flags everything as "provider-favorable"Input is a vendor's first draft (expected behavior)Use --perspective provider to flip the analysis; compare against balanced baseline
Complexity scorer returns Tier 5 for a small dealHigh regulatory or multi-jurisdictional flags triggeredReview the regulatory and jurisdiction inputs; lower if overestimated
Position map shows no IP provisions detectedContract uses non-standard terminology for IP clausesCheck for terms like "work product," "deliverables ownership," or "background IP" manually
Deal timeline estimate seems too shortScorer does not account for internal approval delaysAdd internal review buffer (typically 1-2 weeks per approval level) to the estimated timeline
Objection framework doesn't cover a specific pushbackCounterparty raised an atypical demandStart with Acknowledge tier; frame using closest Market Context example; escalate to Bright Lines if needed
Regulatory leverage arguments rejected as irrelevantFramework doesn't apply to counterparty's jurisdictionVerify which regulations actually bind each party; remove inapplicable leverage points

Success Criteria

  • Position Accuracy: Analyzer correctly classifies 85%+ of provisions when validated against expert review
  • Deal Tier Alignment: Complexity scorer tier matches actual negotiation effort within one tier for 90% of deals
  • Negotiation Efficiency: Average number of negotiation rounds reduced by 30% compared to ad-hoc approach
  • Concession Tracking: 100% of material concessions documented with rationale and trade-off analysis
  • Bright Line Protection: Zero instances of crossing defined Bright Lines without executive escalation and approval
  • Regulatory Coverage: All applicable regulatory provisions identified and addressed in 95%+ of contracts
  • Time-to-Signature: Deals close within estimated timeline +/- 20% for 80% of negotiations

Scope & Limitations

This skill covers:

  • Technology services agreements, SaaS subscriptions, professional services contracts, and B2B licensing deals
  • Negotiation position analysis for liability, IP, payment, SLA, and warranty provisions
  • Deal complexity scoring with tier-based recommendations for timeline, rounds, and focus areas
  • Regulatory leverage for GDPR, DORA, NIS2, and SOX in technology contract contexts
  • Objection handling frameworks and communication templates for common negotiation scenarios

This skill does NOT cover:

  • Employment agreements, M&A transactions, real estate contracts, or consumer-facing terms of service
  • Jurisdiction-specific legal advice or attorney-client privileged analysis (this is a framework, not legal counsel)
  • Contract drafting from scratch (assumes an existing draft to analyze and negotiate)
  • Litigation strategy, dispute resolution beyond contract clauses, or enforcement proceedings
  • Price negotiation tactics for commodity purchases or non-technology procurement

Anti-Patterns

Anti-PatternWhy It FailsBetter Approach
Treating every provision as a Bright LineCounterparty disengages when everything is non-negotiableClassify provisions into 4 concession tiers; trade Easy Gives early to build goodwill
Skipping deal complexity assessmentUnder-preparing for complex deals or over-preparing for simple onesAlways run complexity scorer first to calibrate effort, timeline, and approval requirements
Using regulatory leverage when the regulation doesn't applyDestroys credibility and trust with informed counterpartiesVerify applicability before citing any regulation; use the genuine-vs-preference test from the framework
Accepting "this is our standard template" at face valueEvery template is negotiable; accepting defaults leaves value on the tableAnalyze the "standard" template with the position analyzer to identify moveable provisions
Negotiating provisions in isolationConceding on SLAs without linking to liability caps creates exposureUse the Three-Position Framework holistically; link related provisions (SLAs to credits to liability)

Tool Reference

scripts/negotiation_position_analyzer.py

Analyze contract text and classify provisions by negotiation position.

usage: negotiation_position_analyzer.py [-h] [--json] [--perspective {provider,client}]
                                         input_file

positional arguments:
  input_file            Path to contract text file (.txt or .md)

options:
  -h, --help            Show help message and exit
  --json                Output results as JSON
  --perspective {provider,client}
                        Analysis perspective (default: client)

Outputs: Provision-by-provision position classification (provider-favorable / balanced / client-favorable), overall position score, position distribution summary, and prioritized negotiation recommendations.

scripts/deal_complexity_scorer.py

Score deal complexity across 7 dimensions and recommend negotiation parameters.

usage: deal_complexity_scorer.py [-h] [--json] [--deal-value DEAL_VALUE]
                                  input_file

positional arguments:
  input_file            Path to JSON file with deal parameters

options:
  -h, --help            Show help message and exit
  --json                Output results as JSON
  --deal-value DEAL_VALUE
                        Override deal value in dollars

Outputs: 7-dimension complexity breakdown (value, regulatory, technical, multi-party, duration, strategic importance, IP sensitivity), composite score, deal tier (1-5), recommended timeline, expected negotiation rounds, and key focus areas.

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

35.91%
按下载量换算54

Claude

32.24%
按下载量换算48

Cursor

19.38%
按下载量换算29

Gemini CLI

10.38%
按下载量换算16

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills