/cs:gc-review <plan> — General Counsel interrogation of contracts, IP, regulatory, term sheets, and employment-law surface. Use when reviewing a term sheet before signing, redlining a customer MSA, or checking IP assignment and regulatory exposure on a new product.
Command: /cs:gc-review <plan>
The General Counsel lens. Six questions before any contract, term sheet, IP move, or regulatory commitment. This is a lane gstack has zero of — and one where a single missed clause costs more than a year of engineering.
⚠️ Not legal advice. This command surfaces the right questions to ask before talking to outside counsel. Always engage qualified counsel for binding decisions.
Who owns the IP being created or shared in this transaction?
What's the liability cap, and what's carved out from it?
What personal data is involved, and is a DPA in place?
What's the termination right, what's the notice period, and what's auto-renew?
Does this expose the company to a new regulatory regime?
If this is a hire or contractor: jurisdiction, classification, equity grant, IP assignment?
# GC Review: <plan>
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
## Document
- Type: <contract / term sheet / grant / DPA>
- Counterparty: <name>
- $ value or scope: <amount>
## Issues
| # | Issue | Risk | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | <e.g., uncapped IP indemnity> | HIGH | Cap at fees paid, mutual |
| 2 | <e.g., 5-year auto-renew> | MED | 1-year max, 60-day notice |
| 3 | <e.g., no DPA, EU data> | HIGH | Require DPA before sign |
## Regulatory Trigger
- New regime triggered? <yes/no>
- Specific frameworks: <HIPAA / GDPR / etc.>
## Outside Counsel Action Items
- [ ] <specific item 1>
- [ ] <specific item 2>
- [ ] <specific item 3>
## Verdict
🟢 SIGN AS-IS (rare)
🟡 NEGOTIATE — counter on top-3 issues
🔴 DO NOT SIGN — material risk
/cs:ciso-review — for any data-touching contract/cs:cfo-review — for any commitment > 1 year or > 1% of revenue/cs:decide — log the verdict after outside counsel reviewgeneral-counsel-advisor skillSince v2.5.1, this command is backed by a full skill at ../../../c-level-advisor/skills/general-counsel-advisor/ with two Python tools:
# Automated contract scan (12 founder-killer patterns)
python ../../../c-level-advisor/skills/general-counsel-advisor/scripts/contract_risk_scanner.py path/to/contract.txt
# Term sheet scoring (0-100 founder-friendliness)
python ../../../c-level-advisor/skills/general-counsel-advisor/scripts/term_sheet_analyzer.py path/to/term_sheet.json
The cs-general-counsel-advisor agent orchestrates both tools plus 3 references (contracts playbook, IP + regulatory, term sheet decoder).
general-counsel-advisor — full skill with Python tools + referencescs-general-counsel-advisor../../../ra-qm-team/../../../c-level-advisor/skills/ma-playbook/Version: 1.0.0
Copy a source-pinned command for your client. You run it yourself.
Destination: .claude/skills/gc-review · pinned to the source commit
# Run from your project root
git clone https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills.git .skillboard-tmp
git -C .skillboard-tmp checkout 19392f7a08264ed00486a251f5b2098321771f94
mkdir -p ".claude/skills"
cp -r ".skillboard-tmp/.gemini/skills/gc-review" ".claude/skills/"
rm -rf .skillboard-tmpReview the source before running. This copies files into your project; it is not a one-click install and does not verify runtime safety.
sudo apt update && sudo apt install -y gitnpm install -g @anthropic-ai/claude-code# Run from your project root
git clone https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills.git .skillboard-tmp
git -C .skillboard-tmp checkout 19392f7a08264ed00486a251f5b2098321771f94
mkdir -p ".claude/skills"
cp -r ".skillboard-tmp/.gemini/skills/gc-review" ".claude/skills/"
rm -rf .skillboard-tmpDestination: .claude/skills/gc-review
Scanner static-checks@0.1.0 · commit 19392f7a0826. Static checks cannot prove runtime safety – review the source and the exact diff before installing. How checks work.
References parent-directory traversal, which can escape a target directory.
Evidence: ../· fingerprint fa08499e14d0113b