Review contracts against a playbook
⚠️
Preview — this feature is being built; the design below is the spec.
Compare incoming contracts against your negotiation playbook and produce a clause-by-clause report a lawyer can act on quickly. The model drafts; a lawyer decides.
Inputs
- The contract as a PDF file, with citations on.
- Your playbook: for each clause type, your standard position, acceptable fallbacks and red lines, in a
<playbook>tag.
Output
A structured list, one entry per playbook clause type:
| Field | Meaning |
|---|---|
clause_type | Liability cap, indemnity, termination, governing law… |
found | Whether the contract has such a clause. |
quote | The contract’s wording (backed by a citation). |
assessment | standard, acceptable_fallback, outside_playbook or red_line. |
suggested_redline | Proposed wording when not standard. |
Long contracts
Most contracts fit easily in the 262,144-token window. For document sets such as a master agreement with dozens of schedules, use extended context or review the schedules separately and pass a summary of definitions between calls.
Accuracy
- Require a citation for every
found: true; reject entries without one. - Have lawyers review 30 contracts and grade each entry; use the grades to calibrate a rubric grader and track accuracy per clause type.
- Clause types with low accuracy stay “always human” until they improve.
Confidentiality
Use a workspace with zero data retention or short retention, restrict keys to the legal team, and delete uploaded contracts when the review is done.
Was this page helpful?