Nothing signed unread
The 22-page subcontract gets fully read in minutes, not skimmed at 6 PM before a deadline. Page-14 surprises stop reaching the signature line.
Automation / Chat
Contract Review.
Contract Review reads every inbound agreement end to end — before anyone signs in a hurry. It compares each clause against your playbook, flags the non-standard terms with severity and the reason they matter, and drafts redline language ready for your attorney to approve, modify, or reject. The lawyer stays the lawyer; the bot does the reading.
Workflow concept and scripted demonstration. The descriptions below preserve the original workflow scope; channels, integrations, response times, and actions must be agreed and tested for your setup. Sample dialogue is not a customer result.
Every page read. Every deviation flagged.
Intake
Contracts arrive at the legal-intake mailbox — subcontracts, NDAs, MSAs, vendor terms. The bot opens a review file for each.
Read end to end
Every clause, exhibit, and definition — including page 14, where the painful terms like to live.
Compare to playbook
Each term is checked against your standards: indemnification, payment terms, termination, liability caps, insurance requirements.
Flag with severity
Deviations are ranked — high, medium, low — with the clause quoted, the standard cited, and why the gap matters in plain language.
Draft redlines
For each flag, proposed replacement language in tracked-changes form — ready for the attorney to approve, edit, or strike.
Lawyer signs
Nothing leaves without counsel's approval. The bot assembles the approved redline package and sends it back, audit trail complete.
See the workflow unfold.
A GC's 22-page subcontract hits legal intake. Watch the bot flag three non-standard terms with severity — and the attorney approve two redlines and modify one.
Illustrative sample only. Playback sends no messages and connects to no accounts.
Read the complete sample transcript
- Contract Review Bot
Review ready: Harker subcontract — 3 flags (1 high, 2 medium)
Harker subcontract (22 pp, Pacific Ave TI) — read complete vs. the subcontract playbook. Three non-standard terms: 🔴 HIGH — §9.2 Indemnification. Broad-form: covers Harker's sole negligence. Redline drafted: comparative-fault. 🟡 MED — §5.4 Payment. Pay-if-paid, no time backstop. Redline: pay-when-paid, 60-day outside date. 🟡 MED — §12.1 Termination. 48-hr convenience clause owing only "work in place" — excludes ordered materials. Redline adds materials + demob. All else conforms ✓ (insurance, 5% retainage, lien waiver, venue). Your call on all three.
- Counsel
Re: Review ready: Harker subcontract
Approve the §9.2 and §12.1 redlines as drafted. On §5.4, make the outside date 90 days instead of 60 — Harker won't take 60 and 90 still protects us. Send the package back to their counsel, cc me.
- Contract Review Bot
Re: Harker subcontract — redline package sent ✓
Done: ✓ §9.2 comparative-fault indemnification — as drafted ✓ §5.4 pay-when-paid with 90-day outside date — modified per your instruction ✓ §12.1 termination — materials + demob costs included Redline package (tracked changes + cover note) sent to Harker's counsel 2:31 PM, you're cc'd. Review file CR-26-0118 updated: full read log, playbook citations, your approvals with timestamps, and the as-sent redline. If their counsel responds with edits, the diff comes back to you — nothing self-executes.
Why this workflow matters.
Your playbook, enforced
Indemnification, pay-when-paid, liability caps — your standards are applied to every contract identically, not from memory.
Counsel hours spent on judgment
The attorney reviews flagged deviations with draft language ready — billable reading time becomes minutes of decision time.
A defensible trail
What was flagged, what was waived, who approved what, when — if a clause ever bites, you can show exactly how it was reviewed.
Review record → redline package
The complete sample handoff, ready to inspect alongside the conversation. The actual record format is scoped to your systems.
Inspect the structured sample output
{
"record": "contract_review",
"file": "CR-26-0118",
"document": {
"type": "subcontract",
"counterparty": "Harker Construction",
"pages": 22,
"project": "Pacific Ave TI"
},
"playbook": "construction_subcontract_v2",
"flags": [
{
"clause": "\u00a79.2 indemnification",
"severity": "high",
"issue": "broad_form_sole_negligence",
"redline": "comparative_fault",
"disposition": "approved_as_drafted"
},
{
"clause": "\u00a75.4 payment",
"severity": "medium",
"issue": "pay_if_paid_no_backstop",
"redline": "pay_when_paid_90day",
"disposition": "approved_modified (60\u219290d per counsel)"
},
{
"clause": "\u00a712.1 termination",
"severity": "medium",
"issue": "excludes_ordered_materials",
"redline": "materials_plus_demob",
"disposition": "approved_as_drafted"
}
],
"conforming": [
"insurance_limits",
"retainage_5pct",
"lien_waiver_form",
"dispute_venue"
],
"approvals": {
"by": "counsel",
"timestamped": true,
"package_sent": "14:31",
"cc": "counsel"
},
"rule": "no_external_send_without_attorney_signoff",
"audit": {
"read_log": "complete",
"citations": "playbook_linked",
"transcript_ref": "email-cr-0118"
}
}Make it work for your setup.
Start with your inputs, systems, approval owners, and exceptions. We agree the permitted actions, test dry runs, and define who can pause the workflow.
Let’s talk about the work
What are you tired
of working around?
Show us the spreadsheet, the website, or the task you keep explaining. That’s enough to start a useful conversation. Start a project