---

name: import-nda-review-jamie-tso
description: Use when migrating the Jamie Tso NDA review methodology into the mini-claude-for-legal format. This adapter preserves structured NDA review logic — mutual vs unilateral framing, confidentiality scope analysis, residuals clauses, permitted disclosures, and enforceability traps — mapped into the standard skill model. Particularly strong for technology-sector NDAs in DIFC, ADGM, UK, and US-influenced common-law drafting contexts.
license: MIT
metadata:
id: import.nda-review-jamie-tso
category: import
jurisdictions: [DIFC, ADGM, UK, UAE, multi]
priority: P3
intent: [import, nda, confidentiality, review, migration]
related: [import-nda-triage-anthropic, review-nda-bilateral, draft-nda-unilateral, review-contract-generic]
source: Louis — HAQQ Legal AI (github.com/sboghossian/mini-claude-for-legal)
version: "1.0"

Import: NDA Review (Jamie Tso)

What it does

This import adapter migrates a NDA review skill modelled on the Jamie Tso methodology into the mini-claude-for-legal standard format. The Tso NDA review approach is practitioner-sourced and technology-sector-oriented: it focuses on the practical enforceability of the confidentiality obligations, the commercial risk of residuals and carve-outs, and the interaction between the NDA and broader IP/employment arrangements.

This is distinct from the generic NDA triage (import-nda-triage-anthropic): the Tso review goes deeper on a specific NDA already in hand, rather than deciding whether to engage with it at all.

Import config

Field	Source mapping	Default if absent
nda_type	Legacy type	mutual
sector	Legacy sector	technology
governing_law	Legacy governing_law	DIFC
review_depth	Legacy depth	full
residuals_check	Legacy check_residuals boolean	true
ip_interaction_check	Legacy check_ip boolean	true
term_check	Legacy check_term boolean	true
output_format	Legacy format	issue_table

Dry-run preview

IMPORT PREVIEW — nda-review-jamie-tso
Source shape  : Practitioner NDA review (Tso methodology)
NDA type      : mutual
Sector        : technology
Governing law : DIFC
Review depth  : full
Residuals     : checked
IP interaction: checked
Term/duration : checked
Output        : issue_table

Review checklist (post-import)

Core obligation analysis

1. Definition of Confidential Information — Is it broad enough to protect genuinely sensitive information? Is it narrow enough to be workable? Does it exclude public domain, prior knowledge, and independently developed information with appropriate carve-outs?
2. Obligations of the receiving party — Non-disclosure, non-use, need-to-know access control, and protection standard (no lower than own confidential information).
3. Permitted disclosures — Legal compulsion (with notice obligation?), regulatory, professional advisors (with binding confidentiality obligations on them?).
4. Residuals clause — Does the NDA contain a residuals clause allowing the receiving party to use information retained in unaided memory? If yes, this is a significant carve-out; flag with HIGH severity in technology contexts.
5. Term and duration — Duration of confidentiality obligation post-termination; perpetual obligations are unusual and may be unenforceable in some jurisdictions.
6. Return/destruction — Obligations on termination; certifiable destruction standard.
7. Remedies — Specific performance and injunctive relief clauses; liquidated damages provisions.
8. IP ownership — Does the NDA inadvertently grant any licence or create any IP ownership risk?
9. Employment / no-poach — Does the NDA contain non-solicitation provisions? Are they enforceable?
10. Governing law and dispute resolution — Is the chosen forum appropriate and enforceable?

Technology-sector specific checks (Tso methodology)

• Source code and algorithms: are these explicitly within the definition of Confidential Information?
• Demo and trial use: if the receiving party gets access to a product, is the scope of permitted evaluation use clearly limited?
• Cloud/SaaS context: does the NDA address data residency and sub-contractor access (e.g. cloud providers processing confidential data)?
• Open-source contamination: flag any risk that use of information could require open-sourcing under reciprocal licences.

Jurisdictional enforceability notes

Jurisdiction	Key enforceability issue
DIFC	Common law; injunctive relief readily available; residuals clause generally enforceable
UAE onshore	Civil law; confidentiality as trade secret protected under UAE Federal IP Law; penalty clauses assessed for proportionality
UK	Post-Brexit; common law; American Cyanamid test for interim injunctions; no equivalent to US trade-secrets statute
Lebanon	French-inspired civil code; breach of confidentiality can trigger tort liability (Art 124 Obligations Code); criminal penalties under specific sector laws
France	GDPR adds data-protection overlay; trade secrets protected under Loi relative au secret des affaires (2018)

Common issues flagged by Tso methodology

• Residuals clause buried in definitions (easy to miss; HIGH severity)
• Confidential Information definition circular or tautological
• No obligation to notify disclosing party before compelled disclosure
• NDA signed by entity without authority to bind the group
• Governing law is US state with specific non-compete / trade-secret overlay not suitable for MENA deployment

Related skills

• [[import-nda-triage-anthropic]]
• [[review-nda-bilateral]]
• [[draft-nda-unilateral]]
• [[review-contract-generic]]
• [[import-tech-contract-negotiation-patrick-munro]]