Skip to content

Repository files navigation

ClauseCompass v2

AI-assisted, human-in-the-loop first-pass legal triage for routine commercial contracts.


Live demo https://clausecompass.netlify.app/
Video walkthrough https://drive.google.com/file/d/1glA6a2GmQRi32N1jdMaqJXCDnUl7dNwb/view
GitHub https://github.com/iamsameershaik/legal-queue-copilot

Note: The walkthrough video shows the original v1 PortSwigger AI Pioneer take-home submission. The live app and current repository have since been extended into ClauseCompass v2, which adds contract intake guardrails, evidence-grounded outputs with citation and provenance metadata, a citation coverage verifier, and a governance-focused Handover Lab. The core workflow and safety boundaries are unchanged.


Why this exists

Small in-house legal teams receive a steady stream of repetitive low-risk commercial contracts — mutual NDAs, customer order forms, vendor agreements, SaaS terms. Most are mostly boilerplate, but each still requires human review before signing.

ClauseCompass demonstrates how AI-assisted tooling can reduce the repetitive first-pass component of that workflow while keeping legal judgment, approval, and external redline sign-off entirely with humans. The goal is faster triage, not autonomous approval.


What ClauseCompass v2 does

ClauseCompass accepts contract text, applies a structured legal playbook, and returns:

  • a Green / Amber / Red risk routing decision with explanation
  • clause-level findings grounded in evidence from the submitted contract
  • suggested redline wording for each at-risk clause, based on playbook fallback positions
  • a human decision prompt (Accept / Edit / Reject / Escalate) for every finding
  • a governance and handover summary showing launch readiness and production blockers

It covers: mutual NDAs, customer order forms, vendor agreements, SaaS agreements, and other boilerplate-heavy commercial contracts.

It does not: autonomously approve contracts, produce legal advice, or send redlines without human review and sign-off.


Core workflow

1. Contract intake     → paste text or upload .txt / .md file
2. Preflight guardrail → classify input: accept / warn / reject before review
3. Playbook review     → 10 clause rules checked (governing law, liability, indemnity, data
                         protection, assignment, auto-renewal, confidentiality, payment terms,
                         publicity rights, security obligations)
4. Risk routing        → Green (batch spot-check) / Amber (quick lawyer review) / Red (full
                         legal review required)
5. Findings + evidence → clause-level findings with contract citations and playbook citations
6. Redline suggestions → current wording vs. fallback wording, with provenance metadata
7. Human decisions     → Accept / Edit / Reject / Escalate per finding; decisions logged
8. Handover Lab        → readiness scores, governance matrix, production blockers, adoption plan

v2 feature highlights

Area Feature Status
UI Vite + React + TypeScript, crypto-green command-centre interface Complete
Intake Contract Intake Guardrail — deterministic preflight classifier Complete
Intake Preflight test fixtures with accept / warn / reject paths Complete
Review Deterministic review engine — 12 risk signals, regex-matched Complete
Review Structured playbook — 10 rules with preferred positions, fallbacks, escalation triggers Complete
Review Green / Amber / Red routing with routing rationale Complete
Evidence Contract citations on every finding and redline Complete
Evidence Playbook citations with evidence strength Complete
Evidence Provenance metadata (detectionType, ruleId, matchedSignals) Complete
Evidence Legal-reference status and authority status per finding Complete
Evidence Citation coverage eval — automated verifier, 0 fabricated URLs Complete
Controls Human decision controls — Accept / Edit / Reject / Escalate Complete
Controls Human approval required before any external redline Complete
Governance Handover Lab — readiness scores, control coverage, blockers, governance matrix Complete
Persistence localStorage prototype persistence Complete
Backend Supabase schema + RLS policies applied; client wired Complete
Deploy Netlify — Vite SPA build, _redirects rule Complete
Parsing DOCX / PDF ingestion Not yet
Export Word redline export with tracked changes Not yet
LLM Real LLM / Edge Function integration Not yet
Auth Reviewer roles, auth, multi-reviewer workflow Not yet

Safety boundaries

  • Not legal advice. ClauseCompass is a triage prototype. Nothing it produces constitutes legal advice.
  • No autonomous approval. The system does not approve, sign, or send contracts.
  • Human review required before any suggested redline is shared externally.
  • Red routes require full legal review — the tool explicitly blocks proceeding without sign-off.
  • False negatives are the primary risk metric. Missing a material clause is treated as more dangerous than over-escalation.
  • The synthetic playbook is not legal-approved. It must be reviewed and replaced by qualified legal stakeholders before any production use.

Evidence & authority layer

Every finding and redline in v2 carries structured evidence:

Contract citation — the matched excerpt from the submitted contract, with character range, evidence strength (direct / ambiguous / missing), and detection type.

Playbook citation — the specific playbook rule that triggered the finding, including preferred position, acceptable fallback, and escalation trigger.

Provenance metadata — detector type, rule ID, matched signals, and text range for every output.

Legal-reference status — each finding is marked not-added (external authority structurally supported but not yet curated) or not-applicable. No external legal URLs are generated or fabricated by the engine.

Authority status — each finding is marked external-authority-not-added or playbook-grounded depending on clause type.

A citation coverage verifier (runCitationEval) checks all of the above automatically across 5 sample contracts on every run.


Contract Intake Guardrail

Before a contract enters the review queue it passes a deterministic preflight classifier:

Outcome Meaning
accept Input looks like a valid commercial contract — proceed to review
warn Input accepted with caveats (e.g. short text, unusual structure)
reject Input does not meet minimum quality bar — reason surfaced to user

Rejection reasons include: empty input, non-contract text (emails, code, CVs), contracts outside supported scope, and inputs that are too short to review reliably.

A fixture-based eval (runContractPreflightEval) verifies all paths automatically.


Evaluation and verification

Check Current result Notes
Preflight guardrail fixtures 18/18 · 100% pass rate 18 synthetic test cases
Citation coverage 100% · 128/128 checks 5 sample contracts, 16 findings, 16 redlines
Fabricated legal refs 0 No external URLs generated
Synthetic review eval 87.5% pass rate 8 labelled scenarios
False negatives 1 (current sample eval) Primary safety metric
Historical validation Not yet 30–50 labelled real contracts required

The primary risk metric is false negatives. Missing a material legal issue is more dangerous than over-escalation. Current false negative count is within acceptable range for a deterministic prototype engine, but must be validated against real contracts before production use.


Handover Lab

The Handover Lab page summarises governance readiness for a legal-ops or AI-governance stakeholder:

  • Two readiness scores — prototype readiness (v2 portfolio maturity) and production readiness (controls still required before real deployment)
  • Control coverage — 12 controls with Complete / Not yet status and live metrics
  • Production blockers — severity, owner, and next action for each outstanding requirement
  • Eval & safety metrics — live preflight and citation eval figures
  • Governance matrix — 8 governance areas with current state, production requirement, and status
  • Reviewer activity trail — live or seeded review and decision events
  • Week-two adoption plan — 10-step sequence with owners and success signals
  • Scope governance note — playbook scope, critical rules, and UI selector design intent

Architecture

Layer Technology
Frontend Vite 5 + React 18 + TypeScript
Styling Tailwind CSS + CSS custom properties (v2 design token system)
Review engine Deterministic regex-signal engine — inspectable, auditable, no API keys
Persistence localStorage (prototype) · Supabase (schema applied, RLS policies, client wired)
Evals runContractPreflightEval() · runCitationEval() — run synchronously in-browser
LLM integration Not yet — Edge Function stub present for future proxy
Deployment Netlify (Vite SPA, dist/, public/_redirects)

Why the deterministic engine: The prototype uses a regex-based rule engine so the demo is reliable, inspectable, and safe without exposing API keys in the frontend. Every output is predictable and auditable. A production version would call an LLM through a server-side Edge Function, validate structured output against a strict schema, and log inputs and outputs for audit. The client would never hold API keys.


Run locally

npm install
npm run dev

Requires a .env file — copy .env.example and fill in Supabase credentials if using the Supabase client. The prototype works without Supabase using localStorage only.


Build

npm run build      # production bundle to dist/
npm run typecheck  # TypeScript check without emit

Deployment

Setting Value
Platform Netlify
Build command npm run build
Publish directory dist
SPA redirect public/_redirects/* /index.html 200

Production readiness gaps

The following are required before ClauseCompass could be used in a real legal workflow:

Gap Status
Legal-approved playbook Not yet — synthetic rules only
Historical contract validation set Not yet — 30–50 labelled contracts required
DOCX / PDF parsing Not yet — plain text input only
Word redline export (tracked changes) Not yet — UI only
Real LLM integration Not yet — Edge Function stub present
Auth and reviewer roles Not yet — single-session demo
External legal authority curation Not yet — structurally supported, not curated
Legal sign-off Not yet — required before any deployment

What I would do next

  1. Shadow 3–5 real legal reviews — map workflow gaps and edge cases the prototype does not handle
  2. Replace the synthetic playbook with Legal-approved clause positions
  3. Build a 30–50 contract labelled eval set covering NDA and Order Form types
  4. Track false negatives by clause type across the labelled set
  5. Add DOCX/PDF ingestion via Supabase Edge Function
  6. Add Word redline export with tracked changes
  7. Add reviewer roles and an approval workflow with a persisted audit trail
  8. Run a controlled pilot with the legal team on real (non-sensitive) contracts
  9. Collect reviewer disagreement and override data to improve calibration
  10. Update playbook based on the feedback loop; version-control each change

Submission and portfolio context

ClauseCompass was originally built as a take-home prototype for the PortSwigger AI Pioneer programme — a two-week sprint to demonstrate how AI could accelerate routine legal review for an in-house team.

The /docs folder contains the original v1 submission artefacts:

File Contents
01_README_START_HERE.md Reviewer onboarding
02_AI_PIONEER_SPRINT_BRIEF.md Sprint framing and discovery questions
03_LIVE_DEMO_AND_VIDEO_LINKS.md Links and demo script
04_ARCHITECTURE_AND_DATA_FLOW.md System design and data flow
05_SAMPLE_LEGAL_PLAYBOOK.md All 10 playbook rules
06_EVAL_REPORT.md Full evaluation with test cases and metrics
07_HANDOVER_RUNBOOK.md Legal team adoption plan
08_ASSUMPTIONS_LIMITATIONS_AND_NEXT_STEPS.md Honest scope and production path
09_PROMPTS_USED.md Prompts used during build

The repository has since been extended into v2 as a portfolio demonstration of a more complete AI-assisted legal workflow. The v1 docs reflect the original sprint scope and have not been updated to match v2.

/sample-contracts — five synthetic contracts used in the demo queue.


ClauseCompass is a prototype. It is not production software. It is not legal advice. Every output requires human review and legal sign-off before external use. The playbook must be reviewed and approved by qualified legal stakeholders before any production deployment.

Contributors

Languages