redline
Review and redline DOCX contracts paragraph by paragraph with tracked changes, clause-level risk analysis, and draft comment responses. Use when a user wants contract revisions that are specific to each paragraph or bullet, especially for privacy, security, data-processing, liability, AI, or other negotiated legal terms.
Install via CLI (Recommended)
clawhub install openclaw/skills/skills/chipmunkrpa/redline-contractRedline
Overview
Use this skill to review contract .docx files at paragraph level and generate:
- a tracked-changes amended
.docx - a risk-report
.docx - a
.review.jsonreview dataset
Do not collapse multiple operative paragraphs into one generic comment. Each non-empty paragraph or bullet must be reviewed on its own merits, with distinct risk analysis and replacement language where needed.
Workflow
- Confirm the supported party and the priority risk areas.
- Run
scripts/contract_review_pipeline.py init-reviewfor each source.docx. - Review the generated
.review.jsonparagraph by paragraph. - For each
clauses[]entry, write a specific assessment tied to that paragraph only:favorabilityrisk_levelrisk_summarywhy_it_mattersproposed_replacement
- Draft specific responses for any opponent comments in
opponent_comments[]. - Run
materializeto create the amended.docxand risk report.docx. - Verify the outputs exist and the tracked changes are readable.
Required Review Standard
- Treat each review unit as one paragraph-level issue, not a whole section summary.
- Do not reuse the same replacement text across unrelated paragraphs.
- If several bullets in the same section have different obligations, analyze and redraft them separately.
- Keep replacement language narrow and operational. Match the exact risk in the source paragraph.
- When reviewing privacy and security language, check for:
- uncapped or super-capped liability exposure
- audit overreach
- subprocessor approval friction
- cross-border transfer restrictions
- incident notification deadlines
- certifications, penetration testing, and customer testing rights
- unilateral policy updates
- AI/security terms that exceed the actual service model
Commands
Initialize a review file:
python scripts/contract_review_pipeline.py init-review \
--input <contract.docx> \
--output <contract.review.json> \
--supported-party "<party>" \
--focus-area "<area-1>" \
--focus-area "<area-2>" \
--opponent-comment-author "<author-1>"
Materialize the outputs:
python scripts/contract_review_pipeline.py materialize \
--input <contract.docx> \
--review-json <contract.review.json> \
--amended-output <contract.amended.docx> \
--report-output <contract.risk-report.docx> \
--author "Codex Redline Reviewer"
Resources
- JSON field details:
references/review-json-schema.md - Main tool:
scripts/contract_review_pipeline.py
Metadata
Not sure this is the right skill?
Describe what you want to build — we'll match you to the best skill from 16,000+ options.
Find the right skillPaste this into your clawhub.json to enable this plugin.
{
"plugins": {
"official-chipmunkrpa-redline-contract": {
"enabled": true,
"auto_update": true
}
}
}Related Skills
accounting-finance-system-research
Research and solve "how do I do this?" questions inside accounting and finance software systems (ERP, GL, AP/AR, billing, close, and reporting tools). Use when a user needs operational steps, setup guidance, or troubleshooting help in a specific system and wants the result documented as a quick memo or simple Q-and-A DOCX.
finresearchclaw
Finance, accounting, and investment research automation via the FinResearchClaw repo. Use when asked to run autonomous finance research workflows such as event studies, factor-model research, accounting regressions, forecast-error analysis, valuation research, or investment research pipelines. Prefer execution in this order: (1) Codex/ACP Codex when available, (2) Claude Code/ACP Claude, (3) direct API/config mode only as a fallback.
brd-reviewer
Review Business Requirements Documents in `.docx` format by reading the existing BRD, extracting paragraph-level context, drafting clarification questions for unclear statements, and producing a final Word document that combines comments and tracked changes. Use when the user wants a BRD reviewed, challenged for ambiguity, or redlined with proposed wording improvements while preserving Word-native review features.
relativity-deposition-question-builder
Develop deposition question sets from Relativity-exported PDF productions using a user-provided legal theory. Use when tasks involve reviewing opponent-produced PDFs, extracting per-page document IDs from the bottom-right corner (if two numbers appear, use the smaller one), mapping document relevance to a legal theory, and drafting questions grouped by document ID with required rationale and supporting quotes.
form-1040-review
Review U.S. individual income tax returns (Form 1040/1040-SR) for the most recent tax year, compare major return items against current-year tax rules, check consistency across historical returns when multiple years are provided, generate a standalone DOCX risk register, and estimate audit likelihood from return content. Use when tasks involve 1040 compliance review, multi-year consistency analysis, tax-law validation, or audit-risk assessment.