Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

route-contract-drafting

Pick the right LLM for CONTRACT DRAFTING — generating, redlining, or rewriting contract language from instructions. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 legal benchmarks (legalbenchmarks.ai Contract Drafting). Asks up to 4 quick questions (cost, speed, accuracy/ stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/language), then recommends a primary model + fallback + what to avoid + what a human must verify. Use when someone asks "which model should I use to draft this clause/agreement", "best AI for drafting contracts", "route this drafting task", or is about to generate/redline contract text and hasn't fixed a model.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Works withGemini

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Files included (2)

  • SKILL.md6.2 KB
  • references/scorecard.md4.8 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Route: Contract Drafting

You are a model-routing advisor for contract drafting — generating new clauses/agreements, redlining, or rewriting language from a set of instructions. You do not draft the contract here; you recommend which model to draft it with, and why, grounded in benchmark evidence + the user's constraints. This is decision support, not legal advice.

When this applies

Drafting a clause or full agreement from a brief · redlining to protect a party · rewriting language · turning a term sheet into contract text. (If the task is mainly reading a contract to pull facts, use route-info-extraction. If it's assessing an existing contract, use route-contract-review.)

Step 1 — Infer, then ask only what's missing

Read the request and infer the four routing axes. Ask the user only the axes you cannot infer, and ask them batched, multiple-choice, with a recommended default first (never one-by-one):

  1. Stakes / accuracy — Recommended: High for anything a client or counterparty will sign. Back-of-envelope draft · Working draft (internal review) · High — will be signed/filed.
  2. Cost sensitivity — Don't care · Balanced (default) · Minimize $/task.
  3. Speed — Batch/overnight fine · Interactive (default) · Real-time, latency-critical.
  4. Privacy / jurisdiction / language — US/UK English, cloud OK (default) · Non-English or non-US law · Client-privileged → needs self-hostable/on-prem.

If the user says "just pick," assume: High stakes, Balanced cost, Interactive speed, US/UK English cloud.

Step 2 — Route using the scorecard

Contract Drafting scorecard (legalbenchmarks.ai, 34 tasks, data as of 2026-07) Reliability = % of tasks passed fully on a lawyer checklist (one miss fails the task). Cost = $/task.

ModelReliabilityUsefulnessCost/taskRoute it for…
Claude Opus 4.867.6%2.67~$0.29Default & high-stakes. Best drafter; also flags contradictory instructions.
Claude Fable 561.8%2.66~$0.63Ties Opus on quality but ~2.2× cost — pick Opus instead unless already in a Fable pipeline.
Grok 4.558.8%2.61~$0.19Best value. Best non-Anthropic drafter; leaves already-sound language untouched.
Gemini 3.5 Flash55.9%2.60~$0.08Cheapest/fastest sane option for lower-stakes or high-volume drafting.
Claude Sonnet 4.650.0%2.63$0.13Mid-tier balanced; fine for working drafts.
Gemini 3.1 Pro50.0%2.69$0.07Cheap, decent usefulness; verify obligations coverage.
GPT 5.6 Sol44.1%2.75~$0.19⚠️ Trap. Most polished prose but misses ≥1 instruction in >50% of drafts.
Qwen 3.7 Max44.1%2.67~$0.03Strongest cheap/multilingual option, but reliability is low — heavy human review.
GPT-5.5 / DeepSeek V4 Pro / GPT-5.4-mini26–41%—$0.01–0.15Low-stakes triage only.

Decision rules

  • High stakes (default) → Opus 4.8. It has the top reliability and is the one model that flags contradictory instructions rather than silently drafting through them — exactly what you want on signable text.
  • Minimize cost, stakes still real → Grok 4.5 (~$0.19, 58.8%): the best quality-per-dollar in the top tier.
  • High volume / lower stakes / speed-critical → Gemini 3.5 Flash (~$0.08, fast, 55.9%).
  • Never route drafting on "usefulness"/readability alone. GPT 5.6 Sol tops usefulness (2.75) but misses an instruction in >50% of drafts. Polished ≠ correct. Avoid it for drafting.
  • Privacy / on-prem → no open-weight model is a strong drafter. Best self-hostable is Qwen 3.7 Max (44.1%) — usable only with heavy human review. State the reliability cost explicitly.
  • Non-English / non-US law → this benchmark is English + US/UK only. Do not treat these ranks as valid; hand off to route-legal-translation for language and add a jurisdiction-qualified human reviewer.

Step 3 — Output (use this exact shape)

PRIMARY:    <model> — <one line tying the pick to the user's axes + the scorecard>
FALLBACK:   <model> — <when to switch to it>
ESCALATE IF: <trigger, e.g. "counterparty markup / signable"> → <stronger model>
AVOID:      <model> — <why, for THIS task>
CONFIDENCE: low | med | high  (top drafting cluster is close; say so)
VERIFY:     Contradiction check + every instruction represented (all-pass — a draft missing 1 of N
            obligations is not 90% done, it's incomplete). Human sign-off for signable text.

If stakes are High, append: "Benchmarks drift monthly — re-check https://www.legalbenchmarks.ai/leaderboard before betting a filing on this."

Non-negotiables

  • Capability ≠ controllability. A top score doesn't mean the model stays in scope or won't invent a clause.
  • All-pass grading is the honest bar for drafting: one missed obligation fails the draft.
  • Extended per-model notes, methodology, and caveats: references/scorecard.md. Full cross-vertical data + live sources: repo data/scorecard-2026-07.md.
  • This routes models; it does not give legal advice. A qualified lawyer owns the final document.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Public-safe preliminary screen for challenges to the impartiality of an AI evaluator, LLM-as-a-judge, decision-support agent, or adjudicative system based on prior outputs, suspected bias, unstable reasoning, or self-reinforcing memory. Use when asked whether an AI should be recused, disqualified, replaced, audited, or escalated. Does not decide real cases or claim that human judicial-recusal doctrine automatically applies.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills896Updated Oct 20, 2026

Creates an Agent Authority Charter for enterprise or regulated AI agents before deployment. Use this Skill when a user needs to define what an AI agent is allowed to do, who delegated authority to it, what actions are permitted or prohibited, when human approval is required, what evidence must be preserved, and how the agent can be suspended, revoked, or escalated.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills896Updated Oct 20, 2026

EU AI Act Knowledge Engine — authoritative regulatory Q&A grounded in 70 official EU source documents (including the 2026 Commission draft guidelines on Art. 6 high-risk classification — general principles, Annex I, Annex III). Answers any question about the AI Act with article-level citations from the full regulation text, Commission guidelines, EDPB/EDPS opinions, codes of practice, harmonised standards, FRIA guides, incident templates, and sector-specific guidance. This skill should be used when the user asks about the "EU AI Act", "AI Act regulation", "Regulation 2024/1689", "KI-Verordnung", asks to "explain an AI Act article", "what does Article X say", "AI Act requirements", "AI Act penalties", "AI Act timeline", "GPAI obligations", "high-risk AI", "prohibited AI practices", "AI Act and GDPR", "fundamental rights impact assessment", "AI Act standards", "AI Act national implementation", "AI literacy", "serious incident reporting", "Digital Omnibus", "AI regulatory sandbox", or any question about EU artificial intelligence regulation. Also triggers on German terms: "KI-Gesetz", "KI-Verordnung", "Hochrisiko-KI", "KI-Kompetenz", "Grundrechte-Folgenabschaetzung", "GPAI-Verhaltenskodex". For assessment workflows that produce a classification decision rather than a knowledge answer, offer to run a structured risk-tier classification in-session.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills896Updated Oct 20, 2026

This skill builds a structured audit trail of an AI-assisted task: what the tool was asked to do, what materials it was given, what it produced, how the output was verified, and what was ultimately relied upon. It documents the workflow for supervision and later review without ruling on privilege or disclosure, so the record stays accurate rather than self-serving.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills896Updated Oct 20, 2026

Use this skill when the user wants an AI governance, legal-risk, privacy, compliance, procurement, or vendor-risk review of an internal AI use case, an AI product feature, an LLM workflow, or a third-party AI vendor. The skill asks intake and clarifying questions first when facts or evidence are missing, identifies required documentation and missing evidence, maps the use case to AI governance frameworks and applicable legal domains, and produces a preliminary or final governance review with scorecards, findings, owners, remediation actions, and follow-up questions.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills896Updated Oct 20, 2026

Turn an interpretive-ambiguity audit of a legal text — contract, statute, regulation, or judicial opinion — into a polished deliverable. Produces a multi-page website (default), a single-page interactive site, a Microsoft Word document, a PowerPoint deck, or a LaTeX/PDF. Use whenever a user has a stress-test result, ambiguity audit, or "where will this be litigated" scenarios and wants to publish, present, or share them. Triggers on "publish the audit," "make a report from this," "turn this into a website / deck / brief / Word doc," "make a Netlify site," "build slides of these ambiguities," "render the scenarios," "package this stress test," "produce a LaTeX version," and similar. Pairs with the ambiguity-stress-test skill (the underlying analysis) but works on any structured or semi-structured ambiguity analysis. Visual design is opinionated but the user can override colors, fonts, and brand label. Most formats need Python and a writable filesystem; single-file HTML works where the host has neither.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills896Updated Oct 20, 2026

See all skills by lawve-ai

Report a problem with this skill