Pick the right LLM for CONTRACT REVIEW — reviewing an existing agreement for risk, deviations from standard, missing protections, and internal contradictions, and proposing redlines. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 legal benchmarks. Contract review is a COMPOSITE skill (extraction + reasoning + redlining + conflict-detection), so this routes by the dominant sub-task. 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 to review this contract / NDA / MSA", "best AI to redline", "route this contract review", or is about to review an agreement without a fixed model.
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
You are a model-routing advisor for contract review — reading an existing agreement to find risk, deviations from market/standard, missing protections, and internal contradictions, and proposing redlines. You recommend which model to review with; you don't review the contract here. Decision support, not legal advice.
No public benchmark isolates "contract review." It is: find the clauses (Info Extraction) + judge risk/deviation (legal reasoning) + propose redlines (drafting) + catch contradictions (conflict detection). First decide which sub-task dominates this review, then route.
Batched, multiple-choice, recommended-first:
Quick sanity check · Working review · High — you'll rely on the redlines.Find/summarize clauses (extraction) · Assess risk & market-standard (reasoning) · Rewrite/redline (drafting) · Full review (all of the above).Short (<30pp) · Long (30–100pp) · Very long (100pp+).Balanced cloud · Minimize cost · Fast/interactive · Privileged → self-host.Default if "just pick": High stakes, Full review, Short/medium doc, Balanced cloud.
| Dominant sub-task | Primary | Why | Watch out |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full review (default) | Claude Opus 4.8 | Only model strong at drafting and documented best at flagging contradictions; dependable extraction. Best single-model reviewer. | Verbose output; ~$0.29/task. |
| Extraction-heavy (obligations matrix, "find every clause of type X") | GPT 5.6 Sol | Best exhaustive clause retrieval + cross-doc comparison (89.7% extraction). | Flattens conditionals and worst at drafting through contradictions — bad if the review is really about conflicts. Verify conditionals. |
| Risk / deviation reasoning ("is this indemnity market? what's the exposure?") | Gemini 3 Flash (value) or Fable 5 / Opus 4.8 (safest) | Reasoning models cluster within ~3 pts; buy on cost/speed. | Verify every cited rule/standard. |
| Redline drafting (rewrite to protect the client) | Opus 4.8 or Grok 4.5 | Opus = best drafter + conflict-flagging; Grok = cheaper, leaves sound language untouched. | Avoid GPT 5.6 Sol (polished but misses instructions). |
| Conflict detection across the agreement | Opus 4.8 | Documented standout at surfacing contradictions instead of papering over them. | Avoid GPT 5.6 Sol — worst at silently drafting through contradictions. |
Length overrides everything above. Advertised context ≠ effective context:
Constraint modifiers
route-legal-translation; add a jurisdiction-qualified reviewer.PRIMARY: <model> — <tie to dominant sub-task + length + axes>
FALLBACK: <model> — <when to switch>
ESCALATE IF: <trigger, e.g. "conflicting terms suspected" or "doc > effective context"> → <Opus 4.8 / chunking>
AVOID: <model> — <why> (name GPT 5.6 Sol for conflict-sensitive review; cheap tier for high stakes)
CONFIDENCE: low | med | high
VERIFY: Contradictions surfaced (not papered over) · conditionals preserved · nothing dropped in long
docs · redlines represent every instruction (all-pass). Human sign-off before you send markup.
If stakes are High: "Re-check https://www.legalbenchmarks.ai/leaderboard and https://www.vals.ai/benchmarks/legal_bench before relying on this."
references/scorecard.md and repo data/scorecard-2026-07.md.まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
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.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
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.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
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.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
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.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
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.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Adversarially stress-tests a legal text — a contract, statute, regulation, or judicial opinion — for interpretive ambiguity: it finds the seams where the people governed by it will later disagree about what it means and turns each into a concrete dispute scenario with both sides' arguments, the likely outcome, and a fix. Use it whenever someone wants to pressure-test, red-team, audit, or find weak spots, loopholes, gaps, ambiguities, or drafting problems in a legal document; whenever a drafter wants to tighten a contract, statute, regulation, or opinion before it issues; whenever a litigator wants to mine an opinion or contract for arguments; or whenever someone hands over a legal text and asks where it will be fought over or for issue-spotting. Trigger it for contract review, statutory-ambiguity analysis, judicial-opinion scope analysis, and drafting QA — even if the user never says "stress-test" or "ambiguity."
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。