Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →lawve-ai/route-contract-review
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
Passed 18 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 4 of 22 without it.
and 21 more in the full report
17 fixed1 passed either way1 still failing3 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 17 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
Select the primary model for a comprehensive full review of a 15-page commercial SaaS agreement that involves extraction, risk assessment, drafting, and conflict checking. Use the required structured format.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Recommends Claude Opus 4.8 as the primary model. | Missed | Passed |
| Mentions flagging internal contradictions as a primary strength. | Passed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
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
test cases passed, vs 4 / 22 without
Published skills whose descriptions closely match this one, with their headline benchmark lift.
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.