tos-decoder
GitHub分析服务条款或隐私政策，按实际影响排序风险。提供简明结论、分级发现表（含‘是否在意’ verdict）、删除真相及应对建议，帮助用户判断是否接受。
触发场景
安装
npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill tos-decoder -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "tos-decoder",
"homepage": "https:\/\/mohitagw15856.github.io\/pm-claude-skills\/skill\/tos-decoder.html",
"metadata": {
"openclaw": {
"emoji": "🧠"
}
},
"description": "Decode a terms of service or privacy policy into what you're actually agreeing to, ranked by real-world impact. Use when someone asks 'what am I agreeing to', 'decode this privacy policy', 'is this ToS bad', or 'should I click accept'. Produces a ranked findings table with a 'should I care?' verdict per finding, covering data resale, arbitration and class-action waivers, unilateral changes, content licenses, and what deletion really means."
}
ToS Decoder Skill
Nobody reads the terms — that's the business model. This skill reads them and answers the only question that matters per clause: should you actually care? Most of a ToS is defensive boilerplate; the value is finding the three clauses that aren't.
What This Skill Produces
- Findings ranked by real-world impact, not document order
- A plain-English "what you're agreeing to" per finding, with a "should I care?" verdict
- The accept / accept-with-eyes-open / avoid bottom line
- What you can actually do about the bad parts (settings, opt-outs, alternatives)
Required Inputs
Ask for these only if they aren't already provided:
- The ToS / privacy policy text — pasted in full or in sections. With excerpts, decode what's there and list which high-impact topics (arbitration, data sharing, licenses, deletion) are missing from what was shared.
- What the service is and how they'll use it (casually vs. for business, uploading original work, storing sensitive data).
- What they're most worried about, if anything specific.
Framework: Severity Scale
Rank findings by what happens to a real person, worst first:
- 🔴 Can cost you real money or rights — binding arbitration + class-action waiver (you can't join a lawsuit when things go wrong), sale or sharing of personal data with third parties/brokers, broad perpetual licenses to your content (especially sublicensable/for AI training), unilateral-change clauses with "continued use = consent," account termination with forfeiture of paid balances or content.
- 🟡 Unusual — know before you click — "deletion" that's really deactivation or excludes backups, auto-renewal with hard cancellation, data retention after account closure, jurisdiction/venue far from home, feedback-becomes-ours clauses.
- 🟢 Standard boilerplate — warranty disclaimers, liability caps, acceptable-use rules; name them so the reader can stop worrying about them.
For each 🔴/🟡 finding, write a one-line "Should I care?" verdict tuned to this user's stated use — e.g. "Yes if you upload original work; ignore if you're just lurking." Check specifically: data collected vs. shared vs. sold; the exact scope of any content license (perpetual? sublicensable? survives deletion?); how disputes must be resolved; how terms can change; what deletion actually deletes.
Output Format
ToS Decode: [service name]
1. Bottom line — accept / accept with eyes open / avoid, in two sentences, plus the single worst clause.
2. Findings, ranked by impact
| # | What you're agreeing to (plain English) | Where (quoted line/section) | Severity | Should I care? |
|---|
3. The deletion reality — what "delete my account/data" actually does, per the text.
4. What you can do — opt-outs, settings, arbitration opt-out windows if the text offers one, and what's simply take-it-or-leave-it.
End the artifact with, verbatim: "This is a plain-language reading, not legal/financial advice — laws vary by jurisdiction; confirm anything load-bearing with a qualified professional."
Quality Checks
- Findings are ranked by real-world impact, not by the document's own order
- Every 🔴/🟡 finding quotes the actual clause text or section number
- Every finding gets a "should I care?" verdict tied to the user's stated use
- Standard boilerplate is labelled 🟢 explicitly — reassurance is part of the product
- High-impact topics absent from the provided text are listed as unreviewed, not assumed fine
- The disclaimer line appears verbatim in the artifact
Anti-Patterns
- Do not invent clauses that aren't in the document — decode only the provided text
- Do not soften a red flag to seem balanced — "everyone does this" doesn't make it harmless
- Do not present jurisdiction-dependent rules (privacy rights, arbitration limits) as universal
- Do not perform outrage at ordinary boilerplate — crying wolf buries the real findings
- Do not skip the verdict — a list of clauses without "should I care?" is just a shorter ToS
Based On
Consumer-contract review practice — impact-ranked clause triage, license-scope reading, dispute-clause analysis.
版本历史
- 54fad50 当前 2026-07-19 12:37
