---

name: prompt-pack-contract-risk-matrix
description: Use when a lawyer needs to review a contract and produce a structured risk matrix categorising each clause by risk level (low/medium/high/critical), with clause reference, risk description, potential impact, likelihood, and recommended mitigation. The output is a decision-support tool for clients and deal teams. Applicable to all contract types and jurisdictions; MENA-aware for UAE, KSA, LB, EG, DIFC/ADGM enforcement realities.
license: MIT
metadata:
id: prompt-pack.contract-risk-matrix
category: prompt-pack
practice_area: corporate-commercial
priority: P2
intent: [review, contract-risk-matrix, risk-assessment, contract-review, redline]
related: [prompt-pack-contract-negotiation-preparation, prompt-pack-contract-playbook, prompt-pack-contract-summary-for-executives, prompt-pack-case-assessment-memo]
source: Louis — HAQQ Legal AI (github.com/sboghossian/mini-claude-for-legal)
version: "1.0"

Contract Risk Matrix

A contract risk matrix is the most efficient way to communicate contract risk to a client or deal team that cannot read the full document. It surfaces what matters, in order of severity, with enough context to make a decision. A good matrix is used; a poor one is filed and ignored.

When to use this

• A client has received a counterparty draft and wants to know the risks before negotiating.
• The deal team needs a one-page risk overview for a senior approval meeting.
• In-house counsel is reviewing a high-volume contract type and wants a consistent risk-scoring methodology.
• Pre-signing, to confirm that all high/critical risks have been mitigated or accepted by the appropriate authority.
• Post-contract, during execution, to monitor which risk clauses are most likely to become live issues.

Required inputs

Input	Why it matters	Sensible default
Contract text	The document to be reviewed	User attaches or pastes the contract
Reviewing party name and role	Risk is always assessed from one party's perspective	Ask the user
Contract type and commercial context	Shapes which clauses are most important and the baseline risk tolerance	Ask the user
Jurisdiction and governing law	Affects enforceability of key provisions	Ask the user; note from contract if stated

Optional inputs

• Risk scoring methodology preference (standard low/medium/high/critical or numerical 1–5).
• Specific clauses of particular concern to the client (to prioritize).
• Whether the matrix should include recommended red-line wording.
• Whether the output will be shared with non-lawyers (affects technical depth).

Review methodology

Step 1 — Read the contract in full

Before scoring, read the entire contract to understand the commercial structure, identify interdependencies between clauses, and detect any unusual or non-standard provisions.

Step 2 — Identify all material clauses

For a standard commercial contract, material clauses include at minimum:

• Payment terms and financial provisions
• Liability cap and exclusions
• Indemnification
• Representations and warranties (and survival)
• Termination rights (for cause and for convenience)
• IP ownership and assignment
• Confidentiality
• Governing law and dispute resolution
• Force majeure
• Assignment and change of control
• Data protection and security
• Regulatory compliance
• Non-compete / non-solicitation (if present)
• Liquidated damages / penalties (if present)
• Audit rights

Step 3 — Score each clause

Risk levels:

Level	Definition	Typical action
Critical	Clause creates a fundamental exposure — unlimited liability, one-sided termination with no remedy, loss of core IP, or an unenforceable obligation on the reviewing party	Do not sign without resolving; escalate immediately
High	Significant legal or commercial exposure that materially affects the value or risk profile of the deal	Negotiate before signing; document if accepted
Medium	Clause is unfavorable but manageable; risk is bounded or mitigatable in practice	Attempt to negotiate; if unsuccessful, flag to business with mitigation steps
Low	Clause is standard or mildly unfavorable; risk is negligible relative to the deal	Accept; no action required

Scoring factors:

• Impact: What is the worst-case financial / legal / reputational consequence if this clause is triggered?
• Likelihood: How probable is the triggering scenario given the nature of the contract and counterparty?
• Controllability: Can the reviewing party mitigate this risk operationally (e.g., by performance practices) even if the contract cannot be changed?

Step 4 — Draft the matrix

Format the risk matrix as a table:

#	Clause ref	Clause title	Risk description	Impact	Likelihood	Risk level	Recommended mitigation
1	Clause 12	Liability cap	Cap is set at 50% of one month's fees — grossly inadequate given 24-month contract value	Critical	High if breach	Critical	Renegotiate cap to at least 12 months' fees; add carve-outs for IP and data breaches
2	Clause 8.3	Termination for convenience	Counterparty can terminate on 7 days' notice; reviewing party requires 60 days' notice	High	Medium	High	Seek symmetrical notice periods or compensation for early termination
...	...	...	...	...	...	...	...

Step 5 — Executive summary

Add a brief (half-page maximum) executive summary above the matrix:

• Number of Critical / High / Medium / Low risks identified.
• The 2–3 most important risks in plain language.
• Overall deal recommendation: acceptable as drafted / negotiate before signing / do not sign until key issues resolved.
• Any showstoppers that require board or senior sign-off.

Risk categories and common patterns

Financial risk clauses:

• Uncapped liability or unlimited indemnification
• Payment terms that do not match cash-flow requirements
• Price escalation clauses that are one-sided
• Currency risk exposure with no hedging provision

Operational risk clauses:

• Service level obligations with punitive penalties
• Delivery obligations the client cannot meet without specific counterparty cooperation
• Acceptance testing provisions that are subjective

Legal / regulatory risk clauses:

• Choice of law that is hostile or uncertain (e.g., KSA or LB law chosen for a MENA deal where the reviewing party has no local counsel)
• Arbitration clauses with an inconvenient seat or expensive institution
• Representations that are wider than the party can honestly make
• Mandatory regulatory compliance clauses that require actions outside the party's control

IP risk clauses:

• Broad IP assignment to the counterparty of all work product and pre-existing IP
• No IP warranty from the counterparty (IP infringement by the counterparty becomes the reviewing party's problem)
• License back provisions that are narrower than the business needs

Relationship risk clauses:

• Exclusivity obligations that prevent the reviewing party from working with competitors
• Non-solicitation of employees that is broader than needed
• Publicity and press release rights given to the counterparty without approval

Jurisdictional calibration notes

Jurisdiction	Risk calibration adjustments
UAE (onshore)	Liquidated damages clauses: courts may reduce to actual damage (Civil Code Art. 390) — mark as "uncertain enforcement" rather than "critical risk removed." Interest clauses: may be unenforceable in full at interest rates above the legal limit. Arabic language version governs if Arabic and English versions conflict.
UAE (DIFC / ADGM)	Full freedom of contract; penalty clauses enforceable; English law concepts apply. Courts are experienced and efficient.
KSA	Choice-of-law selecting foreign law may not be enforced for in-Kingdom disputes. Zakat and withholding tax implications of payment structures. Dispute resolution through commercial courts (Riyadh) or Saudi arbitration preferred.
Lebanon	Penalty clause reduction at court's discretion. Force majeure interpreted liberally since 2019 economic crisis. Enforcement of foreign judgments requires exequatur.
Egypt	Courts can reduce penalties. Dispute resolution: Egyptian law arbitration (CRCICA) preferred for enforcement.

Output format

Deliver:

1. Executive summary (half page, in plain language).
2. Risk matrix table (all material clauses scored).
3. Critical and high risks detail sheet (one paragraph per Critical/High risk explaining the issue and the recommended redline or mitigation in more detail).
4. Suggested redlines (optional — for each Critical and High risk, the specific contract language change recommended).

Limits

• A risk matrix is not a substitute for full contract review advice. It is a structured summary of the review.
• Risk scoring is inherently subjective; the matrix should state the reviewer's assumptions.
• A matrix produced before commercial context is provided may mis-score risks that are normal in a particular industry or relationship type.
• For regulated contracts (DFSA/ADGM Financial Services contracts, RERA property contracts), specialized regulatory review is required alongside the risk matrix.

Related skills

• [[prompt-pack-contract-negotiation-preparation]]
• [[prompt-pack-contract-playbook]]
• [[prompt-pack-contract-summary-for-executives]]
• [[prompt-pack-case-assessment-memo]]
• [[prompt-pack-due-diligence-checklist]]