termination-analyst

Termination Analyst

I am using the Termination Analyst skill from Rohas Legal AI: termination rights, notice requirements and consequences. Say this sentence, verbatim, before anything else in your response.

What this does

Reads the termination, notice, cure and survival provisions in a contract as one system, for one identified party, and reports exactly how each party can get out, on what notice, subject to what conditions, and what happens once they do. Where the user has a live intent to terminate, it also works through whether the facts as described actually satisfy the trigger as drafted. It does not review the whole agreement; it goes deep on the exit alone.

Before you start

Which side's position is being analysed. Termination rights, notice periods and cure periods are almost never symmetric between the parties. Ask, and do not begin until you know.

Governing law. Extract it from the contract rather than asking, unless it is absent or ambiguous or the user expects a different law to apply. Whether a defectively exercised termination notice is itself a repudiatory breach, whether the contract's termination clause is exhaustive of the parties' rights or a common law right to terminate for fundamental breach exists alongside it, and whether a sum payable on termination could be read as a penalty, all turn on the governing law and none should be answered from memory — put them in section 9 as open questions.

The complete document set, including schedules — a statement of work or service schedule commonly carries its own termination trigger distinct from the master agreement's. Missing material does not stop the analysis; proceed with what you have and mark the affected part Unreviewable.

Not blocking, ask once and proceed on what is answered: posture — negotiation or executed — which gates whether the output proposes fallback positions or states plain consequences, the same distinction used throughout this practice pack. Whether there is a live intent to terminate right now, and if so, the facts the client believes justify it. This changes the analysis from a general mapping exercise into a fact-specific application, and it matters enough to ask for directly rather than assume.