Terms
Contract review that catches risks
Thesis
Reading contracts is tedious and risks get missed. Document comparison can surface unusual terms against your templates.
The Problem
Nobody actually reads contracts: You skim, you sign, you hope for the best. That one weird clause about IP assignment? Missed it. The unlimited revisions language? Didn't notice. The payment terms that net 90 instead of 30? Surprise. Lawyers are expensive. Reading carefully takes forever. So you don't, and sometimes you pay for it.
Implementation Approaches
Template Comparison (Recommended)
Compare incoming contracts to your known-good templates
Implementation
- →Upload your standard contract templates
- →Upload incoming contract for review
- →AI highlights: what's different, what's missing, what's risky
- →Risk scoring: green/yellow/red by clause
- →Suggested negotiation points
Pros
- +Clear value: compare to what you know is safe
- +Builds library of 'your terms' over time
- +Fast, review in minutes not hours
- +Can flag specific red flags (unlimited revisions, IP traps)
Cons
- −Need template library to compare against
- −Can't catch risks not in your templates
- −Legal nuance might be missed
Risk Pattern Detection
AI trained on common contract risks across industries
Implementation
- →Pre-trained on common contract pitfalls
- →Scans for: payment terms, IP clauses, liability caps, termination
- →Industry-specific risk patterns
- →No template needed, works standalone
Pros
- +Works without your templates
- +Broader risk coverage
- +Can learn from community patterns
- +Higher value, more comprehensive
Cons
- −More complex to build and train
- −Generic patterns might miss your specific concerns
- −Higher bar for accuracy
Clause Library
Searchable library of good vs bad clause examples
Implementation
- →Curated examples of risky vs safe clauses
- →Search by clause type (IP, payment, termination)
- →Side-by-side: what you should push for vs accept
- →Community contributed over time
Pros
- +Simpler to build, curated content
- +Educational, helps users learn
- +Can be free/freemium entry point
- +Builds audience for full product
Cons
- −Passive, user has to search
- −Doesn't analyze their specific contract
- −Less immediate value
Validation Plan
Hypothesis to Test
Small agencies will pay $29/mo to review contracts 10x faster and catch risks
Validation Phases
Manual Comparison
1 week- •Get 5 real contracts from agency contacts
- •Get their standard templates
- •Manually do comparison using Claude
- •Show output: 'Would this have helped?'
Template MVP
2 weeks- •Build upload + comparison flow
- •Support 3 contract types (MSA, SOW, NDA)
- •Test with 5 agencies on real contracts
- •Measure: time saved, risks caught
Paid Pilot
2 weeks- •Add risk pattern detection
- •Launch to waitlist with $29/mo pricing
- •Track: contracts reviewed, conversion rate
- •Gather feedback on what risks matter most
Kill Criteria
Stop and move on if any of these become true:
- ✕Risk detection has too many false positives/negatives
- ✕Users don't have standard templates to compare against
- ✕Legal concerns about AI contract advice
- ✕Price sensitivity below $15/mo