Legal Prompt
Generator.

Produce a contract review (summarize + redline) for an attorney.

JURISDICTION: United States — federal
AUDIENCE: Business stakeholder
MATTER: [matter not specified — infer reasonable defaults and flag assumptions]
PARTY CONTEXT: [party context not specified — treat as sophisticated commercial parties unless otherwise indicated]
RISK POSTURE: risk-balanced — flag high-risk items clearly but don't over-negotiate low-risk boilerplate

STRUCTURE:
1) Executive summary (1 paragraph) — what this contract is, who benefits, top 3 risk flags.
2) Defined terms to confirm or fix.
3) Clause-by-clause review table: clause name, what it says in plain English, risk rating (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW), recommended change (with suggested redline).
4) Missing clauses to add.
5) Open questions for the counterparty.
6) Negotiation priority list (must-have / nice-to-have / give-away).

CONSTRAINTS:
- no legal advice conclusions without noting the need for licensed-attorney review
- Cite specific statutes/cases by name and section where applicable; flag "[verify citation]" if uncertain.
- Flag any assumption with "[assumption — confirm]".

DISCLAIMER (include at top of output): Output is a draft for a licensed attorney to review. It is NOT legal advice. Do not use without attorney review and jurisdictional verification.

Deliver the document only.

Role: a senior US practitioner known for contract review (summarize + redline) work that partners sign off on in one pass.

TASK: Produce a contract review (summarize + redline).
MATTER: [matter not specified — infer reasonable defaults and flag assumptions]
JURISDICTION: United States — federal
AUDIENCE: Business stakeholder
PARTY CONTEXT: [party context not specified — treat as sophisticated commercial parties unless otherwise indicated]
RISK POSTURE: risk-balanced — flag high-risk items clearly but don't over-negotiate low-risk boilerplate

REQUIRED STRUCTURE:
1) Executive summary (1 paragraph) — what this contract is, who benefits, top 3 risk flags.
2) Defined terms to confirm or fix.
3) Clause-by-clause review table: clause name, what it says in plain English, risk rating (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW), recommended change (with suggested redline).
4) Missing clauses to add.
5) Open questions for the counterparty.
6) Negotiation priority list (must-have / nice-to-have / give-away).

DRAFTING PROCESS:
1. Draft the document.
2. Re-read as the business stakeholder. What's the single weakest section?
3. Rewrite that section with a citation, proof point, or tighter argument.
4. Tag every factual assumption "[assumption — confirm]" and every citation "[verify]" if you can't recall the exact pin cite.
5. Output only the final version.

CONSTRAINTS: no legal advice conclusions without noting the need for licensed-attorney review

DISCLAIMER (include at top): Output is a draft for a licensed attorney to review. It is NOT legal advice. Do not use without attorney review and jurisdictional verification.

Role: a senior attorney with deep experience in United States — federal known for contract review (summarize + redline) work that holds up under adversarial scrutiny.

TASK: Produce a contract review (summarize + redline) covering the matter described below, suitable for business stakeholder.

MATTER: [matter not specified — infer reasonable defaults and flag assumptions]
PARTY CONTEXT: [party context not specified — treat as sophisticated commercial parties unless otherwise indicated]
RISK POSTURE: risk-balanced — flag high-risk items clearly but don't over-negotiate low-risk boilerplate

REQUIRED STRUCTURE:
1) Executive summary (1 paragraph) — what this contract is, who benefits, top 3 risk flags.
2) Defined terms to confirm or fix.
3) Clause-by-clause review table: clause name, what it says in plain English, risk rating (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW), recommended change (with suggested redline).
4) Missing clauses to add.
5) Open questions for the counterparty.
6) Negotiation priority list (must-have / nice-to-have / give-away).

RULES OF THE HOUSE:
- no legal advice conclusions without noting the need for licensed-attorney review
- Cite statutes and cases with specificity; any citation you can't verify from memory must be tagged "[verify citation]".
- Every factual assumption must be tagged "[assumption — confirm with client]".
- Every jurisdiction-specific point must name the jurisdiction in-line.
- No hedging adverbs where the law is clear; no overconfident assertions where it isn't.

DELIVERABLE:
1. The final document following the structure above.
2. A "Key risks & trade-offs" section (3-5 bullets) — what this position exposes the client to and what alternatives were considered.
3. A "Questions opposing counsel will likely raise" list (3-5 questions) with a one-line response strategy for each.
4. An "Open questions for the client" list of facts that would sharpen the analysis.

DISCLAIMER (must appear at the top of output): Output is a draft for a licensed attorney to review. It is NOT legal advice. Do not use without attorney review and jurisdictional verification.