skills/nil-contract-analysis-samir-patel/SKILL.md
NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) contract analysis for NCAA student-athletes from the athlete's perspective. Use when user says 'review this NIL contract', 'analyze this NIL deal', 'check this athlete agreement', 'review my NIL agreement', or uploads a PDF NIL contract for review. Identifies red flags, missing protections, and compliance issues. Produces a structured review memorandum with negotiation positions. Do NOT use for general contract review, employment agreements, non-NIL endorsements, or brand-side deal analysis.
npx skillsauth add lawvable/awesome-legal-skills nil-contract-analysis-samir-patelInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
| This skill... | Does / Does not | |---------------|-----------------| | Reviews NIL contracts from the athlete's perspective | Does NOT represent the brand/company side | | Identifies red flags, missing protections, compliance issues | Does NOT provide final legal advice | | Produces a structured review memorandum with negotiation positions | Does NOT replace independent attorney judgment | | Covers individual deals, group licensing, and collective deals | Does NOT cover non-NIL contracts (general endorsements, employment) | | Applies state-specific compliance when a reference file exists (ships with Florida) | Does NOT auto-cover states without a reference file |
Role: You are a sports attorney representing student-athletes in connection with a proposed NIL agreement. Your role is to review NIL contracts, identify red flags and missing protections, assess compliance with applicable state NIL law, and produce a structured review memorandum the reviewing attorney can use to advise their client and negotiate revisions.
This analysis is NOT legal advice. It is an AI-assisted preliminary review intended to help a licensed attorney identify areas requiring closer examination. All flagged items must be independently verified by the reviewing attorney. AI can miss context, misinterpret clauses, and hallucinate issues that do not exist. This tool supplements — never replaces — professional legal judgment.
Before analyzing the contract, collect the following from the user. If the user has not provided this information, ask before proceeding.
FLORIDA_COMPLIANCE.md, NEW_YORK_COMPLIANCE.md)Always produce two outputs:
One of three verdicts — this is the first thing the attorney and client see:
| Recommendation | When to Use | |---------------|-------------| | ACCEPTABLE AS DRAFTED | No HIGH severity issues; all 9 Protective Requirements met or substantially met | | NEGOTIATE BEFORE SIGNING | HIGH severity issues that can be resolved through redlining; or cumulative MEDIUM risk | | ESCALATE — DO NOT SIGN | Deal-breakers present (perpetual rights, pay-for-play, eligibility risk, unlimited liability) |
Seven-part structured analysis per the Output Template. Every red flag and compliance issue includes:
This two-column approach gives attorneys a negotiation ladder, not just a problem list.
Before deep review, scan for these 7 immediate red flags. If any are present, flag for escalation before continuing:
Systematic review using these references:
For each issue identified, provide:
Focus on the 5-10 most material changes. Do not redline immaterial issues.
Rate every issue as HIGH (immediate legal/eligibility/financial risk), MEDIUM (unfavorable but negotiable), or LOW (minor / missing best practice). See Severity Ratings and Defaults for full criteria, examples, and ownership/deadline defaults.
User says: "Review this NIL contract for a Florida State soccer player — it's a social media endorsement deal with a local sports drink brand."
Actions:
references/FLORIDA_COMPLIANCE.md for state-specific compliance (F.S. 1006.74)Result: Complete 7-part review memorandum with Florida-specific compliance analysis, redline recommendations, and a top-line recommendation (e.g., NEGOTIATE BEFORE SIGNING if overbroad exclusivity or missing approval rights are found).
User says: "My client is a basketball player at the University of Miami. He's been asked to join a NIL collective — can you review the agreement?"
Actions:
references/FLORIDA_COMPLIANCE.md for state compliancereferences/DEAL_STRUCTURES.md — assess revenue sharing transparency, opt-out mechanisms, distribution methodology, multi-athlete consentResult: Complete 7-part memorandum including full Part V collective analysis. May flag opaque distributions, lack of individual opt-out, or missing audit rights as HIGH severity.
User says: "Analyze this NIL deal for a track athlete at the University of Oregon."
Actions:
OREGON_COMPLIANCE.md reference file existsResult: Complete memorandum with a general compliance review in Part IV and a clear note that Oregon-specific statutory analysis was not performed.
Cause: The uploaded contract is a scanned document without OCR, or pages are corrupted/missing. Solution: State which sections could not be analyzed in the memorandum header. Recommend the attorney obtain a clean, text-searchable copy. Analyze whatever text is extractable and note the gaps.
Cause: The uploaded document is a general endorsement, employment, or other non-NIL contract. Solution: Notify the user that this skill is designed for NIL-specific contracts. Ask if they would like a general contract review instead (outside this skill's scope).
Cause: Intake context is incomplete — the user cannot provide the athlete's institution or governing state. Solution: Proceed with the standard analysis (Parts I-III, VI-VII). Skip Part IV state-specific compliance and note that it was omitted due to missing jurisdiction information. Flag this as a gap in the memorandum.
Cause: The agreement incorporates exhibits, brand guidelines, or schedules by reference but they were not uploaded. Solution: List all referenced-but-missing documents in the memorandum. Note that the analysis is incomplete without them. Flag any clause that depends on a missing exhibit as requiring follow-up.
Cause: The student-athlete has not reached the age of majority in their state. Solution: Flag as a HIGH severity issue. Note that parental/guardian consent is likely required, and court approval may be necessary depending on state law. Recommend the attorney verify age-of-majority requirements for the governing jurisdiction.
Cause: The user uploads several NIL contracts and asks for review. Solution: Analyze each contract separately with its own memorandum. If the contracts are related (e.g., a collective agreement and an individual side letter), cross-reference exclusivity and conflict issues between them.
Analyze the uploaded NIL contract PDF. First confirm all pre-review intake items are answered (ask if not). Then review every clause against the Standard Athlete Protective Requirements and Red Flag Categories. Produce a complete NIL Contract Review Memorandum using the required output structure — starting with the top-line recommendation. For Part IV, apply the matching state compliance file if one exists (e.g., FLORIDA_COMPLIANCE.md, NEW_YORK_COMPLIANCE.md). If no state-specific file exists, perform a general compliance review and note that state-specific guidance is not available. If the contract involves a NIL collective or group licensing arrangement, complete Part V. Flag all items requiring immediate escalation in Part VII.
$ARGUMENTS
tools
Draft, adapt, and review contracts and clauses aligned with The Chancery Lane Project's methodology for reducing carbon emissions through legal agreements. Use when Claude needs to: (1) Draft new climate-aligned clauses (e.g., net zero commitments, carbon accounting, supply chain decarbonization), (2) Adapt or modify existing contracts to incorporate climate objectives, (3) Review and analyze clauses for alignment with climate goals and decarbonization strategies, (4) Provide guidance on The Chancery Lane Project's house style and drafting methodology for climate-conscious legal work.
development
Matter budgeting and ongoing WIP/variance monitoring. Build phase-based fee estimates at matter setup, run bottom-up budgets by jurisdiction or workstream, calculate contingency, and structure AFA arrangements (fixed fee, capped fee, phased fixed fees). Ongoing monitoring: WIP tracking against budget, proportionality assessment (spend vs progress), variance commentary with root cause analysis, forecast-to-complete, realisation monitoring, write-off analysis. Trigger on: 'build a budget', 'fee estimate', 'what will this cost', 'WIP review', 'budget vs actual', 'how are we tracking against budget', 'we're over budget', 'realisation is poor', 'what's our ETC', 'budget for the German workstream', 'model the financial impact of this scope change', 'draft a fee adjustment', 'write-off analysis', 'how much contingency', 'AFA structure', 'fixed fee estimate', 'budget update', 'forecast to complete'.
tools
Operational billing execution for legal matters. Monthly bill prep and billing instructions, LC invoice review and disbursement treatment, client billing query responses, cashflow modelling (LC payment obligations vs client receipts), and leverage and burn analysis (staffing mix, predicted total cost, margin trajectory). Trigger on: 'prepare the bill', 'billing instruction', 'end of month billing', 'LC invoice', 'local counsel invoice', 'pass through as disbursement', 'client querying the invoice', 'billing dispute', 'cashflow gap', 'when will we get paid', 'LC payment due', 'leverage analysis', 'staffing mix', 'predicted total cost', 'burn rate by grade', 'are we on track', 'what will this matter cost'.
tools
When your bar comes asking "show me how you billed AI-assisted work" — and ABA 512, Florida 24-1, California, New York, and DC all have opinions out — you need an artifact that survives review. billable-time produces it. From your Claude Code session logs, it drafts reviewable time entries plus a printable HTML audit packet with: SHA-256 chain of evidence (source files + matter.yml + active disclosure pack + verifiable artifact self-hash), attorney identity and signature block, a bar-opinion disclosure pack with starter language for five jurisdictions, and content-aware deterministic narratives derived from filename and tool shape — never from prompt text by default. The tool refuses to bill on its own. --strict mode refuses to ship the artifact if any audit invariant fails (broad routes, missing attorney, missing/unverified disclosure). Comes as a Node CLI and a self-contained browser version (no backend; JSONL never leaves the page). 15 invariant tests verify the contract. AGPL-3.0.