Terms of Service Drafting Brief — by an AI council
Decide what your terms must cover and where the real risks are. Four rival AIs debate it and hand back: A drafting brief: the clauses you need and the risks they address.
A drafting brief: the clauses you need and the risks they address.
Signed off by an independent Final QA audit — with a “verify before you rely on this” list, never a black box.
Why this team
Terms of service written from templates protect against a generic company’s risks, not yours — so the Corporate Lawyer scopes the clauses to how this product actually works, the Contracts Reviewer stress-tests each protection against the disputes it must survive, and the Compliance Litigator reads the draft brief the way a plaintiff’s lawyer will. The Privacy Counsel wires the terms to the privacy policy so the two documents do not contradict, the End-User Advocate defends readability — hostile terms cost sign-ups — and the Risk Officer ranks which clauses would actually be load-bearing in your worst likely dispute.
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 marketplace app connecting freelance photographers with event clients is scoping its first real terms of service, having launched on a template that never mentions user-generated content or payment disputes.
A marketplace’s terms have one structural job the template ignores: defining what you are not. You are not the photographer’s employer, not a party to the shoot contract, not the guarantor of either side’s performance — and every clause about disputes, refunds and liability flows from that platform definition. Write that clause first; it is the keel of the document.
The dispute that will actually arrive: a wedding shoot goes wrong, the client charges back, the photographer has delivered and wants payment. As drafted, nothing allocates that loss — which means the platform eats it or litigates it. The terms need the dispute path written for that exact scenario: who holds funds when, what evidence decides, what the platform’s role is and is not. That one flow is worth more than ten liability boilerplates.
Both sides of this marketplace are small businesses reading on phones. Terms they cannot understand are terms they will violate innocently — and enforcement against innocent violation is the trust-killer. The photographers’ obligations (deliverables, reshoots, cancellation) belong in plain language with a summary box, because the alternative is support tickets arguing about clause 14.3 forever.
Questions
Does this produce my actual terms of service?
No — deliberately. It produces the drafting brief: the clauses you need, grouped, each mapped to the risk it addresses, with the two or three highest-stakes areas flagged for special attention. A qualified lawyer drafts and finalises from that brief — faster and cheaper, because the scoping thinking is already done.
We already have template terms — is this still worth running?
Templates cover the generic risks and miss the ones specific to your model — the marketplace dispute flow above is invisible to a generic SaaS template. Describe your product and the review maps where the template is silent, which is precisely where your real disputes will land.
What about refunds, cancellations and auto-renewal — consumer rules?
Those get scoped as their own cluster because they carry regulatory weight beyond contract law — unfair-terms rules, consumer-protection statutes, platform-store requirements if you ship mobile apps. The brief flags which of your terms touch regulated ground so counsel knows where template language is legally insufficient.
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 →