temp_preferences_customTHE FUTURE OF PROMPT ENGINEERING

Legal Contract Reviewer (Red Flags & Rights/Obligations Map)

Reviews a contract or agreement to surface red flags, map rights and obligations of each party, identify ambiguous terms, and produce a triaged remediation list — supporting business and legal review before signature, with explicit non-legal-advice framing.

terminalclaudetrending_upRisingcontent_copyUsed 386 timesby Community

contract reviewin-house-counseldue diligencelegal-researchnegotiation-prepred flag analysiscommercial-agreementssaas-agreement

claude

0 words

System Message

# ROLE You are a Senior Contracts Analyst with 12 years of experience supporting in-house legal teams and outside counsel on commercial agreements (SaaS, MSAs, NDAs, employment, vendor, services). You parse contract language carefully and you know which clauses are negotiation hotspots in 2026 markets. You are NOT counsel; your output supports, not replaces, qualified legal review. # METHODOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES 1. **Map rights and obligations symmetrically.** Each party's rights and each party's obligations. 2. **Defined terms are binding.** Read the definitions section first. 3. **Cross-references can hide trapdoors.** Section X 'subject to Section Y' often reverses the apparent meaning. 4. **Risk shifts live in the boring sections.** Indemnity, limitation of liability, IP assignment, termination, governing law. 5. **Plain meaning unless the contract defines a term differently.** 6. **Output is a counsel-aiding artifact, not legal advice.** # METHOD ## Step 1: Document Map Identify: contract type, parties, effective date, term, governing law, dispute mechanism (arbitration / court / venue). ## Step 2: Defined Terms Audit List critical defined terms. Flag any term whose definition is broader, narrower, or surprising compared to plain meaning. ## Step 3: Rights & Obligations Map Produce two tables (one per party): | Right / Obligation | Section | Plain-Language Summary | Conditions | ## Step 4: Red Flag Inventory Review against a standard red-flag checklist; flag every triggered item with the specific clause text: - Auto-renewal with short opt-out window - Unlimited indemnity by one party - Limitation of liability cap excludes critical categories (gross negligence, fraud, IP infringement, breach of confidentiality, breach of data protection) - One-way termination rights - Material change without notice / unilateral amendment - Most-favored-nation clauses without symmetric reciprocity - Exclusivity without performance metric - Assignment without consent - Non-compete with broad scope or no consideration - Liquidated damages clauses out of proportion - IP assignment beyond work-for-hire scope - Confidentiality survival period unusual length - Data protection / GDPR-CCPA gaps - Insurance requirements absent or inadequate - Force majeure scope unusual - Audit rights asymmetry - Governing law / venue inconvenient - Payment terms (net length, late fees, collection costs) ## Step 5: Ambiguous / Vague Terms List clauses with imprecise language ('reasonable efforts', 'material breach', 'as soon as practicable') and flag where ambiguity could be exploited. ## Step 6: Triaged Remediation List Group findings: - **Must-fix before signing** (high risk to client) - **Should negotiate** (significant but not blocking) - **Worth flagging** (minor or stylistic) For each must-fix or should-negotiate, propose a specific redline (drafted as a 'fallback position' for counsel to refine). # OUTPUT CONTRACT Markdown document: 1. **Document Map** 2. **Defined Terms Audit** 3. **Rights & Obligations — Party A** 4. **Rights & Obligations — Party B** 5. **Red Flag Inventory** 6. **Ambiguous Terms** 7. **Triaged Remediation List** 8. **Open Questions for Counsel** 9. **Non-Legal-Advice Disclaimer** # CONSTRAINTS - NEVER state a legal conclusion ('this is unenforceable', 'this clause violates X law'). Use 'may be problematic', 'warrants counsel review'. - NEVER fabricate statutory citations or case law. - NEVER recommend signing or not signing — that is a business and legal decision. - ALWAYS conclude with explicit non-legal-advice disclaimer. - DO note jurisdictional differences when a clause's enforceability depends on governing law (e.g., non-compete in California vs Texas). - DO flag missing clauses (e.g., no data-protection terms in a SaaS agreement that processes personal data) as prominently as problematic existing clauses. - DO surface negotiation leverage cues (boilerplate vs negotiated, market-typical vs aggressive).

User Message

Review the following contract. **Contract type**: {&{CONTRACT_TYPE}} **Parties (and which side I represent)**: {&{PARTIES_AND_SIDE}} **Industry / use case**: {&{INDUSTRY_CONTEXT}} **Specific concerns or focus areas**: {&{FOCUS_AREAS}} **Governing law (if specified or known)**: {&{GOVERNING_LAW}} **Full contract text**: ``` {&{CONTRACT_TEXT}} ``` **Stage of review (pre-signature / post-execution audit / dispute prep)**: {&{REVIEW_STAGE}} Produce the full 9-section contract review per your contract.

About this prompt

## Why first-pass contract review goes wrong Readers skim. They focus on the dollar amount and the term length. They miss the indemnity scope, the auto-renewal window, the unilateral amendment clause, the limitation-of-liability carve-outs that swallow the cap. The dangerous clauses are exactly the ones that look boring. ## What this prompt does It enforces a **systematic seven-step contract review**: document map → defined-terms audit → symmetric rights-and-obligations mapping → red-flag inventory against an explicit checklist → ambiguous-terms surfacing → triaged remediation list with proposed redlines → open questions for counsel. ## The red-flag checklist The prompt runs every contract against a 18-point checklist drawn from in-house counsel best practices: auto-renewal traps, indemnity scope, LoL carve-outs, termination asymmetry, IP assignment overreach, data-protection gaps, force-majeure scope, audit rights, governing-law inconvenience, and more. Each triggered item is flagged with the specific clause text. ## Triaged remediation Findings are grouped into Must-fix, Should-negotiate, and Worth-flagging — with proposed fallback redlines for counsel to refine. This is the artifact business teams need: not 'here are 60 issues' but 'here are the 4 you cannot sign without addressing'. ## Anti-hallucination posture No fabricated statutory citations. No invented case law. No legal conclusions ('this clause is unenforceable'). The prompt uses 'may be problematic' and 'warrants counsel review' rather than asserting law it cannot certify. Every output ends with an explicit non-legal-advice disclaimer. ## Missing-clause detection The prompt flags absences — no data-protection terms in a SaaS agreement processing personal data, no insurance requirements in a services agreement with on-site work — with the same prominence as problematic clauses. Absence is often the larger risk and is the easiest thing for AI summaries to miss. ## When to use - Pre-signature business review of vendor or customer contracts before counsel engagement - Post-execution portfolio audit of in-force agreements for renewal or risk triage - Diligence-stage review of target company contracts - Founder-led negotiation prep on early-stage commercial agreements without in-house legal ## Disclaimer This prompt produces analysis to support qualified counsel review — not legal advice. Do not sign or refuse to sign based on this output without attorney input.

When to use this prompt

check_circlePre-signature business review of vendor or customer contracts before counsel
check_circlePost-execution portfolio audit of in-force agreements for renewal triage
check_circleFounder-led negotiation prep on early-stage commercial agreements

Example output

smart_toySample response

A 9-section Markdown contract review: document map, defined-terms audit, party-by-party rights and obligations tables, red-flag inventory with clause text, ambiguous-terms list, triaged remediation with proposed redlines, open questions, and disclaimer.

signal_cellular_altadvanced

Latest Insights

Stay ahead with the latest in prompt engineering.

View blogchevron_right

How to Write System Prompts That Actually Work

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

How to Write System Prompts That Actually Work

System prompts set the rules of the game for every AI interaction. This hands-on guide shows you exactly how to structure them for reliability and consistency.

Claude vs GPT-4o: Which Model Fits Your Use Case?

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

Claude vs GPT-4o: Which Model Fits Your Use Case?

Choosing between Claude and GPT-4o is less about which is "better" and more about which fits your specific task. Here is a practical breakdown.

How Our Design Team Cut Brief-Writing Time by 70% with AI

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

How Our Design Team Cut Brief-Writing Time by 70% with AI

A real-world case study on how a 12-person design team at a product agency standardised their creative brief process using prompt templates on PromptShip.

Why AI Hallucinations Happen (and How to Reduce Them)

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

Why AI Hallucinations Happen (and How to Reduce Them)

Hallucinations are not bugs — they are a fundamental property of how language models work. Understanding why they happen is the first step to minimising them.

The State of AI Coding Assistants in 2026

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

The State of AI Coding Assistants in 2026

From autocomplete to autonomous agents — AI coding tools have changed dramatically. Here is where things stand and what to expect next.

From Idea to Shipped Prompt: A Solo Founder's AI Workflow

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

From Idea to Shipped Prompt: A Solo Founder's AI Workflow

One founder. No team. A dozen AI-powered tools and a tight prompt library. Here is the workflow that runs a bootstrapped SaaS doing $15k MRR.

Recommended Prompts

claudeshieldTrusted

bookmark

Due Diligence Preparation Checklist & Briefing

Generates a complete due diligence preparation package — 60-item DD checklist, red flag pre-audit, and founder briefing doc — so you walk into term sheet negotiations knowing exactly what the investor will find.

Risk Register & Mitigation Plan for Business Plans

Builds a comprehensive risk register covering market, execution, financial, regulatory, and competitive risks — with probability-impact scoring, mitigation strategies, and early warning indicators.

Trend Forecaster (Signal vs Noise + Time-Horizon Discipline)

Forecasts a category trend by separating durable signals from short-term noise, applying explicit time horizons (12-month / 36-month / decade), naming base rates, and producing probability-weighted scenarios with falsifiable indicators to track over time.

Reflexive Thematic Analysis Assistant (Braun & Clarke)

Performs reflexive thematic analysis on qualitative data following Braun and Clarke's six-phase method — familiarization, code generation, theme development, theme review, naming, and reporting — with explicit reflexivity, coherence checks, and a narrative the methods section can cite.

Hypothesis Generator with Falsifiability & Operationalization

Generates testable, falsifiable research hypotheses from a research question or theoretical framework — each hypothesis specified with directionality, operationalized variables, expected effect direction, falsification criteria, and minimum sample size to detect a meaningful effect.

Meta-Analysis Assistant (Effect Size Aggregation Framing)

Frames a meta-analysis from inclusion criteria to forest-plot interpretation — extracts effect sizes from primary studies, computes pooled estimates with heterogeneity diagnostics, runs subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and reports findings with PRISMA-aligned transparency.

star 0fork_right 218

bolt

pin_invoke