ThinkWithPrompt by SynotticThinkWithPrompt

Compare clauses across contract versions

Side-by-side comparison of what changed between drafts and why it matters.

Legal & ComplianceRCTFVVAdvancedLegalRewrite & EditAnalyzeFill-in Template

The prompt

Role: Act as a contracts manager comparing versions of an agreement. Context: Document / clauses in scope: [SCOPE]. Version A (ours / prior): [VERSION_A]. Version B (counterparty / new): [VERSION_B]. Our acceptable positions: [PLAYBOOK]. What we care about most: [PRIORITIES]. Task: Produce a change table: for each substantive change, quote the before/after (short), describe the effect in plain English, say whether it moves risk toward or away from us, rate it (acceptable / negotiate / reject) against the playbook, and suggest the response. Ignore purely stylistic edits but note if a 'style' edit changes meaning. Format: A table: Clause | Before | After | Effect | Risk direction | Verdict | Suggested response. Plus a summary of the 3 most important changes. Verification: Flag any change where the effect is ambiguous and any 'minor' edit that actually shifts an obligation or a defined term. Validation: Have counsel confirm the verdicts on anything rated 'negotiate' or 'reject'. Check the summary picks the changes that matter to our priorities, not just the biggest text edits.

Highlighted [brackets] are blanks to replace with your own details.

Fill in the blanks and use this promptMore Legal & Compliance prompts

What to fill in

  • SCOPE
  • VERSION_A
  • VERSION_B
  • PLAYBOOK
  • PRIORITIES

How this prompt is built

This prompt follows the RCTFVV structure (Role, Context, Task, Format, Verification, Validation). RCTFVV extends RCTF with two checking steps. Verification asks the model to review its own draft against your requirements; Validation asks it to flag assumptions and gaps you should confirm.

Related prompts

Find more prompts like this