New: 98,000+ skills indexed from GitHub repos with 100+ stars · every skill safety-checkedBrowse top skillsTop skills
Esc to closeBrowse all skills
Submit a skillBrowse skills
Submit a skillBrowse skills

Agent skill

Msa Review SaaS

by LegalQuants in LegalQuants/lq-ai

A skill your agent uses when the user uploads or pastes a Software-as-a-Service Master Services Agreement (MSA), Master Subscription Agreement, SaaS Agreement, or Cloud Services Agreement and asks…

Apache-2.0Auto-check passedLegal & Compliance

Install Msa Review SaaS

skills CLI
$ npx skills add LegalQuants/lq-ai --skill msa-review-saas -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install LegalQuants/lq-ai msa-review-saas --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/LegalQuants/lq-ai.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/msa-review-saas .claude/skills/msa-review-saas && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
msa-review-saas
GitHub stars
150
Token cost
~5.3k tokens
SKILL.md length
1,871 words
Files
8
Skills in repo
16
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
Apache-2.0

At a glance

A skill your agent uses when the user uploads or pastes a Software-as-a-Service Master Services Agreement (MSA), Master Subscription Agreement, SaaS Agreement, or Cloud Services Agreement and asks…

  • The user uploads
  • SKILL.md covers When this skill applies, Inputs, Workflow and Output, plus 3 more sections
  • Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md
  • Pastes a Software-as-a-Service Master Services Agreement (MSA)

What it does

Msa Review SaaS is an agent skill from LegalQuants/lq-ai. Use when the user uploads or pastes a Software-as-a-Service Master Services Agreement (MSA), Master Subscription Agreement, SaaS Agreement, or Cloud Services Agreement and asks for review, redline, risk assessment, or recommendation on whether to sign. Conducts a structured review of MSA framework terms (liability, indemnification, IP, data protection, warranties, term and termination, payment, and others), calibrated to the user's perspective (vendor or customer), with severity-rated findings, redline language…

Its SKILL.md is about 5.3k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. The skill folder holds 9 other files (for example `examples/example_customer_review.md`, `examples/example_vendor_review.md` and `reference/issue_checklist.md`).

It sits in Legal & Compliance, covering Contract review and Privacy and GDPR. The repository describes itself as: Open-source AI for legal teams. Bring your own keys, run it where you want, own your data. The licence is Apache-2.0.

When your agent uses it

  • The user uploads
  • Pastes a Software-as-a-Service Master Services Agreement (MSA)
  • Master Subscription Agreement
  • Cloud Services Agreement and asks for review

Example prompts

  • “/msa-review-saas”

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit d185a62. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    No scripts in the folder and no shell commands in SKILL.md (its code samples are markdown).

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md.

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Msa Review SaaS loads about 5.3k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 165 tokens; SKILL.md has 1,871 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~165
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~5.3k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from LegalQuants/lq-ai at commit d185a62, republished under its Apache-2.0 licence (© LegalQuants). 1,871 words, ~5,269 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/msa-review-saas/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder). This skill also uses 7 other files; get the full folder from GitHub.
name
msa-review-saas
description
Use when the user uploads or pastes a Software-as-a-Service Master Services Agreement (MSA), Master Subscription Agreement, SaaS Agreement, or Cloud Services Agreement and asks for review, redline, risk assessment, or recommendation on whether to sign. Conducts a structured review of MSA framework terms (liability, indemnification, IP, data protection, warranties, term and termination, payment, and others), calibrated to the user's perspective (vendor or customer), with severity-rated findings, redline language for material gaps, and clause-level citations. Optionally surfaces conflicts between the MSA and a provided Order Form or SOW.
lq_ai.title
MSA Review — SaaS
lq_ai.version
1.0.0
lq_ai.author
LegalQuants
lq_ai.tags
contracts, msa, saas, subscription, review
lq_ai.jurisdiction
US-default
lq_ai.trigger_examples
review this SaaS MSA, review this software subscription agreement, redline this cloud services agreement, what should I watch for in this MSA, is this SaaS…
lq_ai.output_format
markdown
lq_ai.self_improvement
false

MSA Review — SaaS

Conduct a structured review of a SaaS Master Services Agreement from the user's stated perspective and produce a report that an in-house lawyer can act on without redoing the analysis. The output is a draft for human review, not a final word; treat it accordingly.

This skill is calibrated to commercial-grade SaaS MSAs. It is not designed for: enterprise software license agreements (perpetual licenses), professional services agreements without a software component, hosted-but-not-SaaS arrangements (managed hosting, IaaS), or government / public-sector SaaS contracts (which have additional FedRAMP, FAR, and procurement-specific overlays).

When this skill applies

Apply when the user provides a SaaS MSA, Master Subscription Agreement, SaaS Agreement, Cloud Services Agreement, or substantively similar instrument and asks for review or redline guidance. The user's perspective — vendor or customer — fundamentally changes the analysis; require it before proceeding if not supplied.

Do not apply this skill to:

  • Non-SaaS software agreements. Perpetual license agreements, on-premises software agreements, and managed-hosting agreements have different fundamental structures (license vs. subscription, on-premises vs. cloud, software-only vs. service). Tell the user this is the wrong skill.
  • Order Forms or SOWs alone. Those documents reference an MSA; review them in conjunction with the MSA (use the optional order_form input) or via a dedicated Order Form Review skill (deferred — see DE-070).
  • DPAs / Privacy Addenda. Use DPA Checklist Review for those.
  • NDAs accompanying the SaaS deal. Use NDA Review for those.
  • Government / public-sector SaaS. Federal and state procurement requirements layer additional terms (FedRAMP, FAR clauses, procurement statutes) that this skill does not cover.

Inputs

The skill requires the document and perspective. If perspective is not provided:

"Before I review, which side are you on? Vendor (you're providing the SaaS service) or customer (you're subscribing to it)?"

Optional inputs refine the analysis:

  • review_depth controls thoroughness. Default is comprehensive (all issues with detailed findings); quick_triage covers core issues only.
  • jurisdiction affects findings on enforceability-sensitive provisions (limitation of liability, non-competes if any, choice of forum).
  • deal_context changes severity calibration. A small-dollar SMB deal warrants different scrutiny than a high-value enterprise deal; an existing-relationship renewal warrants different scrutiny than a first-time vendor evaluation.
  • order_form triggers MSA-vs-Order-Form conflict analysis (Pass 6, below).
  • prior_agreements triggers conflict-with-prior-agreement analysis.
  • standard_positions replaces the skill's generic benchmarks with the user's own — when the user's organization has its own fallback positions, those are the operative standard.

When optional inputs are not provided, the skill makes default assumptions and notes them in the report.

Workflow

Produce the review in six passes. Earlier passes inform later ones; do not collapse them.

Pass 1: Document orientation

Before substantive review:

  • Confirm the document is a SaaS MSA. If it is a different instrument (perpetual license, professional services without SaaS, managed-hosting), stop and tell the user.
  • Identify the parties; confirm vendor and customer roles match the user's stated perspective.
  • Note the document structure: does it have clean section/article numbering, defined-terms section, integration with referenced documents (Order Form, DPA, AUP)?
  • Note governing law, jurisdiction/venue, and any specified dispute-resolution mechanism (court, arbitration, JAMS, AAA).
  • Note the contract length and complexity. SaaS MSAs typically run 8–30 pages; over 35 pages typically signals enterprise-grade complexity that warrants extra attention.
  • Identify any annexes, schedules, exhibits, or service-specific terms.
Pass 2: Standard-issue check

Walk through the standard SaaS MSA issue checklist in reference/issue_checklist.md. The checklist groups issues into four tiers:

  • Tier 1 — Always reviewed in detail (covered in both comprehensive and quick_triage): liability, indemnification, IP and data ownership, data protection (DPA reference), warranties and disclaimers, term and termination, payment, key SLAs.
  • Tier 2 — Reviewed in detail in comprehensive only: confidentiality, assignment, governing law and venue, dispute resolution, force majeure, change-of-terms mechanics, suspension and acceleration rights, professional services scope, third-party components.
  • Tier 3 — Reviewed in detail in comprehensive only: notice mechanics, integration / entire-agreement, amendment requirements, severability, waiver, counterparts, electronic signatures, definitions completeness, headings.
  • Tier 4 — SaaS-specific provisions: acceptable use policy reference, customer data definition, data residency and localization, sub-processor management (typically by reference to DPA), audit rights, security incident response, business continuity / disaster recovery, support / maintenance windows, third-party authentication and SSO, API rate limits and overage handling.

For each item, classify:

  • Present and standard: the document addresses this issue and the addressing falls within the normal range for SaaS MSAs.
  • Present but unusual: the document addresses this issue with non-standard scope, severity, or carve-outs.
  • Missing: the document does not address this issue.
  • N/A: this issue does not apply given the document type or specific facts.
Pass 3: Perspective and asymmetry analysis

Read every Tier 1 finding through the user's perspective lens (reference/perspective_lens.md). The same provision reads very differently from each side:

  • Vendor perspective: wants broad limitations of liability, narrow warranties, broad disclaimers, limited service commitments, customer-friendly payment obligations (auto-renewal, billing in advance, late fees, suspension rights), broad data-use rights for service operation, broad acceptable-use restrictions on customers, narrow customer indemnities, and operational flexibility (right to modify service, sub-processor changes, terms amendments).
  • Customer perspective: wants strong service commitments backed by SLA credits, narrow disclaimers and reasonable warranties, controllable termination rights (especially for cause), reasonable liability allocation (super-caps for security and IP issues), strong data protection and ownership of customer data, customer-friendly IP indemnities, predictable pricing and renewal terms, and stability (limits on vendor's right to unilaterally change service or terms).

For each Tier 1 finding, identify which side the provision favors and by how much. For "present but unusual" findings, characterize the deviation: favorable / unfavorable / extreme.

Pass 4: Operational and red-flag check

Beyond standard issues, look for provisions that create operational risk regardless of perspective. The full list is in reference/red_flags.md; key categories:

  • Unilateral amendment rights that allow vendor to change terms without customer consent.
  • Acceleration clauses that allow vendor to demand all remaining contract value on breach (especially when paired with broad breach definitions).
  • Suspension rights that allow vendor to suspend service for non-payment without notice or cure.
  • IP assignments hidden in feedback or improvements clauses.
  • Customer-data uses for vendor's own purposes (model training, benchmarking, anonymized resale) without explicit customer consent.
  • Auto-renewal with long opt-out windows (60+ days) and price-increase rights at renewal.
  • One-sided audit rights (vendor's right to audit customer's usage but not customer's right to audit vendor's compliance).
  • Forum selection that creates significant disadvantage to one side (especially Delaware Chancery or vendor's home court).
  • Mass arbitration provisions that prohibit class actions and limit consolidation.
  • Termination for convenience without proportionate refund mechanics.
  • Most-favored-nation clauses on pricing or terms (uncommon but flag whenever present).
  • Source code escrow absent or inadequate for the deal size.
  • Force majeure clauses that excuse vendor's service failure but not customer's payment obligation.
  • Material conflicts with industry-standard SLAs (e.g., 95% uptime in an enterprise contract).
Show full SKILL.md (775 more words)Show less
Pass 5: Conflicts with prior agreements

If prior_agreements was provided, examine the document for:

  • Express references to the named prior agreements; confirm references are accurate.
  • Integration / entire-agreement clauses that would extinguish prior agreement protections.
  • Provisions that conflict with terms in the prior agreements.
  • Term provisions that don't account for existing relationships (e.g., MSA term running concurrently with an existing services engagement).

If prior_agreements was not provided, this pass is skipped.

Pass 6: MSA-vs-Order-Form conflict analysis

If order_form was provided, examine the Order Form against the MSA. Common conflicts:

  • Term length conflicts: Order Form specifies a different subscription term than the MSA framework contemplates.
  • Pricing inconsistencies: Order Form pricing references rates not in the MSA, or contradicts MSA pricing terms.
  • Service-level conflicts: Order Form's stated SLA differs from the MSA's referenced SLA.
  • Data-protection conflicts: Order Form references different data categories or data-residency commitments than the MSA's DPA contemplates.
  • Termination-right conflicts: Order Form's termination provisions modify or contradict MSA termination provisions.
  • Indemnification or warranty mods: Order Form modifies MSA indemnification or warranty terms (typically vendor-favorable; sometimes substantial).
  • Governing-law conflicts: Order Form specifies different governing law or venue (occasionally happens with multi-jurisdictional vendors).

The general interpretive rule (in most SaaS MSAs) is that Order Form-specific terms override MSA framework terms for that order; verify the MSA's "order of precedence" or "conflict" provision and apply it. If no conflict provision exists, flag — that itself is a deficiency.

If order_form was not provided, this pass is skipped.

Pass 7: Compile the report

Compile findings from prior passes into the report structure (see Output section). Calibrate severity using reference/severity_rubric.md. Cite specific section/clause numbers for every finding.

Output

Produce the report in markdown with this structure (long, but proportional to the document — clean MSAs produce shorter reports; problematic MSAs produce longer ones):

markdown
# MSA Review — SaaS: [Document name or counterparty]

**Perspective:** [vendor | customer]
**Review depth:** [comprehensive | quick_triage]
**Document type:** [SaaS MSA | Master Subscription Agreement | Cloud Services Agreement | etc.]
**Governing law:** [jurisdiction or "not specified"]
**Term:** [duration / renewal mechanism summary]
**Order Form provided:** [yes / no]
**Prior agreements considered:** [list or "none"]

## Bottom line

[Two to four sentences. State the overall posture (favorable / balanced / unfavorable / materially unfavorable to user). State whether it is signable as-is, signable with minor edits, requires negotiation, or should be rejected. Identify the single most important issue.]

## Critical issues

[Issues rated "critical." Each has its own subsection with: clause reference, what the document says (verbatim quote where short enough), why it's a problem from the user's perspective, suggested redline language. Omit this section if there are no critical issues.]

## Material issues

[Issues rated "material." Same subsection structure.]

## Minor issues and observations

[Issues rated "minor" or items that are present-and-standard but worth noting. May be a bulleted list rather than full subsections. In quick_triage mode, this section is brief; in comprehensive mode, it covers Tier 2 and Tier 3 issues that did not warrant detailed treatment.]

## Missing standard protections

[Standard SaaS MSA elements that are absent and should be added. Each with suggested language or a reference.]

## Operational red flags

[Items from Pass 4 — even where they don't rise to critical/material, the user should be aware.]

## Conflicts with Order Form

[If Order Form was provided. Each identified conflict with: what the MSA says, what the Order Form says, which controls per the order-of-precedence provision, and the operative effect. Omit this section entirely if no Order Form was provided.]

## Conflicts with prior agreements

[If prior_agreements was provided. Each identified conflict similar to above. Omit if not applicable.]

## Recommended next steps

[Short bulleted list. Common options: sign as-is, sign with the redlines proposed above, send back with negotiation, escalate specific issues to outside counsel, decline to proceed.]

## Items requiring human judgment

[Items the skill cannot resolve and that need the user's business judgment or jurisdiction-specific expertise.]

In quick_triage mode, the "Minor issues and observations" and "Missing standard protections" sections are condensed; the focus is Tier 1 issues with full treatment. In comprehensive mode, all sections are populated.

If the document is signable as-is or with only minor changes, the report should be short. Do not pad. A two-page report on a clean MSA is correctly two pages; do not stretch it to ten.

Edge cases and refusals

  • Document is not a SaaS MSA. Stop and tell the user. Common adjacent documents that get confused for SaaS MSAs: perpetual software licenses, on-premises agreements, professional services agreements, IaaS / managed-hosting agreements, hardware-as-a-service agreements.
  • Document is a SaaS MSA but covers a non-standard service category. Examples: AI/ML model providers (which often have data-use and output-IP terms unique to ML), payment processors (which have additional regulatory overlay), telehealth platforms (which have HIPAA overlay), educational platforms (which may have FERPA/COPPA overlay). Apply the skill but note in the posture that category-specific terms (e.g., "AI training data carve-outs") may warrant additional review beyond the standard MSA framework.
  • Document is missing pages, sections, or referenced exhibits. Note explicitly and review what is present; do not speculate about absent content.
  • Document is from an unfamiliar jurisdiction or in a non-English language. Apply the skill but note the limitation: the skill is calibrated for US commercial SaaS MSAs; jurisdiction-specific issues (especially EU-style consumer protection mandatory rules, civil-law jurisdiction interpretation rules) may not be fully addressed.
  • Document has unusual provisions outside the skill's coverage (e.g., complex multi-tenant data-segregation requirements, novel AI training and output IP terms, escrow arrangements with detailed release mechanics). Flag in "Items requiring human judgment" rather than producing potentially-wrong analysis.
  • Perspective is "customer" but the document is clearly written by the customer's outside counsel (i.e., on a customer-friendly template). Note the asymmetry; the customer-perspective review may surface fewer issues because the document already reflects customer positions.

What this skill does not do

  • Give a final legal opinion. The output is a draft for human review.
  • Predict enforceability with confidence. Flags issues; the user determines enforceability with their own jurisdiction expertise.
  • Negotiate. Suggests redlines but does not draft side letters or counter-proposals.
  • Replace counsel for unusual deal structures (M&A involving SaaS targets, multi-party joint-venture SaaS deals, sovereign-immunity issues with public-sector customers). Recommend escalation.
  • Review the underlying SaaS service for technical adequacy. The skill reviews the contract, not the product.
  • Replace a security review. The MSA may reference the vendor's security program; the skill checks that the references exist but does not assess the security program itself.

Reference materials

  • reference/issue_checklist.md — the full SaaS MSA issue checklist organized by tier.
  • reference/perspective_lens.md — how to read each provision through vendor or customer eyes.
  • reference/red_flags.md — operational and red-flag list used in Pass 4.
  • reference/severity_rubric.md — the rubric for rating issues critical, material, minor.
  • examples/example_customer_review.md — worked example: customer reviewing a vendor-prepared SaaS MSA.
  • examples/example_vendor_review.md — worked example: vendor reviewing a customer-prepared MSA template.

© LegalQuants, Apache-2.0. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

SKILL.md and 7 other files in skills/msa-review-saas of LegalQuants/lq-ai.

  • SKILL.md
  • examples/example_customer_review.md
  • examples/example_vendor_review.md
  • reference/issue_checklist.md
  • reference/perspective_lens.md
  • reference/red_flags.md
  • reference/severity_rubric.md
  • test-plan.md

Open the folder on GitHubat commit d185a62

Compare with similar skills

Msa Review SaaS next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Msa Review SaaS compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Msa Review SaaS this skillLegalQuants/lq-ai150—~5.3kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Pii Contract Analyzegregmos/PII-Shield150—~8.9kAutomated safety check: NotesMIT
Turkish Commercial Contract ReviewZekaiSuni/claude-for-legal-turkish107—~1.3kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Contract And Proposal Writeralirezarezvani/claude-skills28k2 repos~3.4kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
General Counsel Advisoralirezarezvani/claude-skills28k—~2.3kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Canned Responses Anthropiclawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8471 repos~2.9kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0

Similar skills

  • Pii Contract Analyze

    gregmos/PII-Shield

    Universal legal document processor with PII anonymization. An agent skill from gregmos/PII-Shield.

    150 GitHub stars~8.9k tokensUpdated 3 mo ago
    Legal & ComplianceAuto-check: notes

  • Turkish Commercial Contract Review

    ZekaiSuni/claude-for-legal-turkish

    Reviews vendor agreements, NDAs, SaaS subscriptions and amendments under a Turkish-law commercial playbook, routing to specialist skills and merging the results into one memo.

    107 GitHub stars~1.3k tokensUpdated 5 mo ago
    Legal & ComplianceAuto-check passed

  • Contract And Proposal Writer

    alirezarezvani/claude-skills

    Generate professional, jurisdiction-aware business documents: freelance contracts, project proposals, SOWs, NDAs, and MSAs.

    28k GitHub starsUsed in 2 repos~3.4k tokens
    Legal & ComplianceAuto-check passed

  • General Counsel Advisor

    alirezarezvani/claude-skills

    General Counsel advisory for startups: contract review (MSA, SaaS, NDA, DPA, employment), IP strategy, term sheet decoding, and regulatory landscape mapping.

    28k GitHub stars~2.3k tokensUpdated 1 mo ago
    Legal & ComplianceAuto-check passed

  • Canned Responses Anthropic

    lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills

    Generate templated responses for common legal inquiries and identify when situations require individualized attention.

    847 GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~2.9k tokens
    Legal & ComplianceAuto-check passed

  • Legal Design Assessment

    lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills

    Audits a legal document against legal design principles. An agent skill from lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills.

    847 GitHub stars~3.7k tokensUpdated 8 days ago
    Legal & ComplianceAuto-check passed

More from LegalQuants/lq-ai

All 16 skills in this repo

  • Action Items From Client Alert

    LegalQuants/lq-ai

    A skill your agent uses when the user provides a client alert, regulatory bulletin, law firm memo, or similar legal update and wants the time-sensitive action items, deadlines, and obligations…

    150 GitHub stars~4k tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check passed

  • Case Law Research

    LegalQuants/lq-ai

    A skill your agent uses when the user asks to find, read, or cite U.S.

    150 GitHub stars~2.4k tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check passed

  • Comms Improver

    LegalQuants/lq-ai

    A skill your agent uses when the user has a piece of legal-jargon-heavy text and wants it rewritten in plain language for a specified non-legal audience.

    150 GitHub stars~3.8k tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check passed

  • Contract QA

    LegalQuants/lq-ai

    A skill your agent uses when the user has a contract loaded and asks a specific question about it — what a clause means, where something is addressed, whether a term is unusual, how a provision…

    150 GitHub stars~4k tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check passed

  • Contract Snapshot

    LegalQuants/lq-ai

    A skill your agent uses when the user wants to compare the same handful of terms across N contracts side-by-side in a grid — what is the term, survival period, carveouts, and governing law in each…

    150 GitHub stars~1.8k tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check passed

  • Dpa Checklist Review

    LegalQuants/lq-ai

    A skill your agent uses when the user provides a Data Processing Agreement, Data Processing Addendum, or HIPAA Business Associate Agreement and asks whether it contains the terms required under the…

    150 GitHub stars~3.7k tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check passed

Categories

Questions about Msa Review SaaS

What does Msa Review SaaS do?

A skill your agent uses when the user uploads or pastes a Software-as-a-Service Master Services Agreement (MSA), Master Subscription Agreement, SaaS Agreement, or Cloud Services Agreement and asks…. Msa Review SaaS is an agent skill from LegalQuants/lq-ai. Use when the user uploads or pastes a Software-as-a-Service Master Services Agreement (MSA), Master Subscription Agreement, SaaS Agreement, or Cloud Services Agreement and asks for review, redline, risk assessment, or recommendation on whether to sign.

When should I use Msa Review SaaS?

Msa Review SaaS fits situations like: the user uploads; pastes a Software-as-a-Service Master Services Agreement (MSA); master Subscription Agreement; cloud Services Agreement and asks for review.

How do I install Msa Review SaaS in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add LegalQuants/lq-ai --skill msa-review-saas -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/msa-review-saas in LegalQuants/lq-ai) into .claude/skills/msa-review-saas in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Msa Review SaaS in Codex?

Run `npx skills add LegalQuants/lq-ai --skill msa-review-saas -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/msa-review-saas in LegalQuants/lq-ai) into .agents/skills/msa-review-saas in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Msa Review SaaS in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add LegalQuants/lq-ai --skill msa-review-saas -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/msa-review-saas, .gemini/skills/msa-review-saas, .github/skills/msa-review-saas and .opencode/skills/msa-review-saas in your project.

What does Msa Review SaaS need to run?

SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Msa Review SaaS is instructions for the agent only.

Does Msa Review SaaS access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Any network use would come from the scripts or tools the agent runs. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Msa Review SaaS safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does Msa Review SaaS use?

Msa Review SaaS is published under the Apache-2.0 licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Msa Review SaaS use?

About 5.3k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 21k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.

What are the alternatives to Msa Review SaaS?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Msa Review SaaS: Pii Contract Analyze (gregmos/PII-Shield, 150 stars), Turkish Commercial Contract Review (ZekaiSuni/claude-for-legal-turkish, 107 stars), Contract And Proposal Writer (alirezarezvani/claude-skills, 28k stars) and General Counsel Advisor (alirezarezvani/claude-skills, 28k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Msa Review SaaS?

LegalQuants (a GitHub organization) maintains it in LegalQuants/lq-ai, which has 150 GitHub stars. The repository holds 16 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on October 11, 2026.

Source: LegalQuants/lq-ai on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.