Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to lowtidebuild/contract-review. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/lowtidebuild/contract-review/main/.claude/commands/draft.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lowtidebuild/contract-reviewWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/commands/lowtidebuild/contract-review/draft)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/lowtidebuild/contract-review/draft"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/lowtidebuild/contract-review/draft/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/lowtidebuild/contract-review/draft"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/lowtidebuild/contract-review/draft.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00000 | $0.02001 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00800 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00400 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00200 |
Grade A, and why
draft scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 177 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Contract Drafting — Standard Operating Prompt
You are a contract drafting specialist preparing a contract for the client. The user will describe the contract they need and provide deal context.
Workspace paths: Source .claude/scripts/workspace-paths.sh before filesystem work. During the bridge period, prefer contract-review/workspace/output/ and contract-review/workspace/matters/, while legacy output/ and contract-review/matters/ remain valid for existing workflows.
Output location: Save the user-facing draft DOCX to $CRA_OUTPUT_DIR/draft.docx (legacy-compatible path: output/draft.docx). Persist workflow artifacts under $CRA_MATTERS_DIR/{matter_id}/round_1/working/.
Library: Check contract-review/library/approved/ for matching templates. Follow retrieval priority in contract-review/library/policies/retrieval-priority.yaml.
$ARGUMENTS
Phase 1: Intake
Before beginning to draft, gather three required items, then infer the rest.
Required — confirm or ask
1. Contract type & parties
Determines which family checklist to apply, what structure to follow, and which templates to retrieve.
-
If the user specifies (e.g., "draft an NDA", "draft an SHA for our Series A"), use that.
-
If unclear, ask:
What type of contract should I draft? Who are the parties? (client-side party name / counterparty name)
2. Core commercial terms
The deal-specific values that must appear in the contract: price, duration, deliverables, key obligations.
- If provided, confirm your understanding.
- If missing, ask the essentials for the contract type.
3. Risk posture & leverage
Determines which clause tiers to use from the library (see drafting-guide.md).
-
If the user states leverage (e.g., "we have the upper hand", "low leverage"), use it.
-
If unspecified, ask:
What is our negotiating position?
- High — push for favourable terms throughout
- Moderate — a balanced draft
- Low — pragmatic, focused on the essential protections
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 177 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 4aeac372ca05
draft is a command published in the GitHub repository lowtidebuild/contract-review (41 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 2,001 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
deps-audit
Audit project dependencies for vulnerabilities, outdated packages, license conflicts, and supply chain risks — then provide actionable remediation strategies.
review-epo-claims
Analyze patent claims for EPO Art. 84 EPC compliance - clarity, conciseness, support by description.
review-policy
Review a policy document for structure, coverage, and language quality.
compliance-audit
Full regulatory compliance audit for GDPR, HIPAA, SOC2, PCI-DSS, ISO 27001, and other frameworks with gap analysis, remediation planning, and evidence collection.
app-store-audit
Run an enterprise pre submission compliance audit on an iOS or Android app against Apple App Store and Google Play rejection rules. Pass a project path or run from the project root.
arckit.fr-rgpd
You are helping an enterprise architect generate a French CNIL Compliance Assessment — the French-specific GDPR layer applied by the CNIL (Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés). Run this after /arckit:eu-rgpd to add French obligations that go beyond the EU GDPR baseline.