AI Contract Review
Drop the contract in. Four rival AIs read every clause, flag what could hurt you in plain English, and tell you what to push back on — before you sign.
A ranked list of red-flag clauses with plain-language explanations.
Signed off by an independent Final QA audit — with a “verify before you rely on this” list, never a black box.
Why this team
Contracts are read twice: optimistically at signing, and forensically when the relationship sours — this council does the second reading first. The Contracts Reviewer goes clause by clause for the traps, the Corporate Lawyer frames what is market-standard versus genuinely one-sided, and the Compliance Litigator reads every clause as it will perform in an actual dispute. The Risk Officer converts clauses into money at risk, the Negotiation Expert turns red flags into redlines you can actually ask for, and the Devil’s Advocate plays the counterparty exercising every right the document gives them.
Each seat runs on a different frontier model — GPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok — so it’s a genuine cross-model review, not one AI in costumes. How a run works →
What the debate sounds like
An illustrative excerpt — A freelance developer is about to sign a twelve-month retainer whose draft includes unlimited revisions, IP transfer on payment, a broad non-compete, and payment terms of sixty days.
Ranked by how much they can cost: the non-compete is drafted wider than the engagement — as written it arguably covers the client’s entire industry for a year, which for a freelancer is an employment ban dressed as a clause. Second, “unlimited revisions” with no acceptance criteria means the project legally never ends. Third, sixty-day terms on a monthly retainer means financing two months of the client’s business interest-free, permanently.
Now run it as the client on a bad day: I am unhappy in month seven, so I request endless revisions — you must deliver them — while withholding the invoice that is not due for sixty days, and if you walk away, the non-compete keeps you out of my industry while we argue. Every clause is individually survivable; the combination hands one party all the exits. That combination is the finding.
The asks, in the order that preserves the relationship: revisions capped per deliverable with written acceptance criteria — frame it as protecting their timeline, which it genuinely does. Non-compete narrowed to named direct competitors for six months. Thirty-day terms with a late-payment interest clause. The IP-on-payment term is actually fine — do not spend negotiating capital on clauses that are already market.
Questions
Is this a substitute for having a lawyer review the contract?
No — the deliverable itself says a qualified lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction should review before signature, and means it. What it changes is what that review costs and catches: you arrive knowing the ranked red flags, the redlines to request and the questions to ask, instead of paying an hourly rate for the orientation pass.
The other side says the contract is “standard” — can the council check that?
That claim is precisely what the Corporate Lawyer seat tests: some clauses genuinely are market-standard and fighting them wastes negotiating capital, while others wear the word “standard” as camouflage. The output separates the two, so you push only where pushing is warranted — which also makes you a more credible negotiator.
What if I have already signed it?
Run it anyway with that context: the analysis shifts from redlines to exposure — which clauses can actually bite, what triggers them, and what to avoid doing while the agreement runs. Knowing where the tripwires are changes behaviour even when the terms are fixed, and prepares the renegotiation at renewal.
Your material is used only to run your review — never to train public models. Encrypted in transit and at rest. Security & privacy →
Want full control — pick your own minds, set the depth? Open the full council →