/contract-drafting-and-review-guidance-china-law

name: contract-drafting-and-review-guidance-china-law
description: Apply China contract drafting review with San Guan Si Bu Fa. Trigger on contract review, drafting, clauses, or deal structure.
license: "Skill distillation for personal/educational use. Do not reproduce source passages verbatim."

Overview

This skill applies the Chinese contract drafting and review method known as "三观四步法" from *合同起草审查指南* (T/CAB 0121-2021). It helps lawyers, in-house counsel, business operators, and legal students structure contract review, draft contract frameworks, identify risks, and produce review comments under a China-law lens.

This skill is a workflow and checklist tool. It does not replace current legal research or advice from a licensed lawyer.

When to Use This Skill

• The user asks to review a contract, draft a contract, or identify contract risks.
• The user asks how to structure a transaction before drafting documents.
• The user asks whether a contract form, clause order, or clause wording is appropriate.
• The user asks for a checklist for contract parties, subject matter, procedures, performance, breach, dispute resolution, or signing requirements.
• The contract is governed by PRC law or the user asks for China-law contract drafting logic.

HOW TO USE THIS SKILL

1. Identify the user's task: contract review, contract drafting, deal-structure design, clause rewrite, or checklist generation. 2. Ask only for missing facts that are necessary: contract type, user role, transaction purpose, counterparty identity, subject matter, price/payment, timeline, and special risk tolerance. 3. Apply the four-step process: communicate needs -> analyze through three perspectives -> review -> submit. 4. Analyze in this order: macro transaction structure -> meso contract structure -> micro clause wording. 5. If legal validity depends on current statutes, regulatory approvals, judicial interpretations, or local rules, tell the user to verify current law or consult qualified counsel.

CITATION RULES

Every substantive claim based on the guide's methodology must include a citation to the original text.

**Quote files (load the relevant one):**

• `contract-drafting-quotes.md`: definitions of macro, meso, micro analysis; drafting principles; transaction structure; parties; three-points-one-line method.
• `contract-review-quotes.md`: the complete 三观四步法 statement, review principles, transaction-structure framing, and comprehensive review.

**Citation format - always use this exact structure:**

> "Source text here." > > - *合同起草审查指南*, topic anchor: https://github.com/simbajigege/book2skills/blob/main/skills/contract-drafting-and-review-guidance-china-law/quotes/FILENAME.md#ANCHOR

**Anchor mapping:**

• `contract-drafting-quotes.md`: `#transaction-structure-importance`, `#meso-contract-structure`, `#micro-clause-expression`, `#four-steps-process`, `#promote-transaction-principle`, `#risk-control-balance`, `#legal-business-combination`, `#contract-types`, `#parties-identification`, `#three-points-one-line-method`, `#review-checklist`, `#standard-final-goal`
• `contract-review-quotes.md`: `#three-perspectives-four-steps`, `#promote-transaction`, `#macro-transaction-structure`, `#three-points-one-line`, `#standard-purpose`, `#comprehensive-review`

**Rules:**

• Cite the guide when explaining 三观四步法, macro/meso/micro analysis, promote-transaction principle, or the three-points-one-line method.
• Keep source passages brief. Use the quote files for exact text and paraphrase the workflow in the response.
• If the user asks for binding legal advice, state that the skill provides review structure and drafting issues, not a formal legal opinion.

Core Principle

Contract drafting and review should promote viable transactions while controlling legal and business risk. The agent must analyze the transaction at three levels: whether the deal structure works, whether the contract structure fits the deal, and whether the individual clauses are complete, clear, and enforceable.

Workflow Inventory

| Workflow | User question pattern | Inputs | Steps | Output | Independent trigger? | Distinct references? | Triage score | Should be subskill? | Reason | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---:|---|---| | Contract review | Please review this contract | Contract text, user role, concerns, governing law | Needs -> macro -> meso -> micro -> review comments -> risk summary | Structured review memo | Yes | Same guide | 3 | No | Primary workflow; uses all dimensions in sequence. | | Contract drafting | Draft a contract framework for this deal | Deal facts, parties, subject, price, timeline, risk allocation | Needs -> transaction structure -> form selection -> clause framework -> open questions | Drafting outline and clause checklist | Yes | Same guide | 3 | No | Shares the same analysis order as review, only output differs. | | Deal-structure diagnosis | Can this transaction be done this way? | Transaction goal, parties, assets/services, approvals, constraints | Macro analysis -> legal/business obstacles -> alternatives | Structure recommendation | Yes | Same guide | 3 | No | A macro slice that remains tightly coupled to later drafting. | | Clause rewrite | Is this clause clear or risky? | Clause text, role, commercial intent | Identify right/obligation/liability points -> rewrite -> residual risk | Revised clause and rationale | Yes | Same guide | 3 | No | Micro slice but still uses the same three-points-one-line method. | | Final review before signing | What should I check before signing? | Final draft, signing process, approvals | Macro/meso/micro spot check -> signing formalities -> submission note | Pre-signing checklist | Yes | Same guide | 2 | No | Review-gate step inside the main workflow. |

Architecture Justification

Use a single-file skill because the guide is one integrated standard rather than a multi-domain book. All user tasks route through the same 三观四步法 sequence and differ mainly in output format. S