Unwrapped

Teardown · spellbook

SPELLBOOK

SPELLBOOK

CategoryLegal AILast round · $20M · 2024Site ↗
  • Khosla Ventures

Customer contracts + firm precedents + LLM APIs + Word workflow.

01

Public data / API layer

Customer contract files
Customer contract filesYours
Firm precedent libraries
Firm precedent librariesYours
OneDrive
OneDriveAPI
SharePoint
SharePointAPI
Google Drive
Google DriveAPI
Dropbox
DropboxAPI

Internal replication score

Easy
0.76

Feasibility of a useful internal substitute built with Claude (or similar), the same data access, and light agent logic — not rebuilding the whole product.

IRS = 0.30·D + 0.25·L + 0.20·O + 0.15·R + 0.10·Sthis record · 76%
  • D

    Data accessibility

    weight 0.300.95
    • 1.0mostly customer-owned / public / standard third-party sources
    • 0.5mixed accessibility
    • 0.0hard-to-access or proprietary source layer
  • L

    LLM substitutability

    weight 0.250.85
    • 1.0mostly retrieve / prompt / cite / summarize / classify / compare
    • 0.5mixed standard + custom behavior
    • 0.0strongly custom model behavior (fine-tunes on proprietary data, etc.)
  • O

    Output simplicity

    weight 0.200.75
    • 1.0straightforward internal work product (memo, list, reply, SQL query)
    • 0.5moderately specialized
    • 0.0highly specialized (e.g. FDA-graded clinical text)
  • R

    Review / risk tolerance

    weight 0.150.50
    • 1.0internal use with human review is acceptable
    • 0.5moderate risk
    • 0.0very low tolerance for error (e.g. external legal filings)
  • S

    Surface complexity

    weight 0.10inverse — higher means less surface dependence0.40
    • 1.0a simple internal shell is enough
    • 0.5polished workflow matters somewhat
    • 0.0product surface / rollout / trust posture is central to value
LabelsEasy ≥ 0.67Medium ≥ 0.34Hard < 0.34

Missing factor rows use heuristics from wrapper scores. Editorial heuristic, not investment advice.

Build it yourself→

Recreate the workflow inside your org.

Internal build

Build it yourself

Same document connectors + frontier model + retrieval prompts — loses Word surface, compliance posture.

Internal use only. Replacing them in-market is a different bar than replaying the useful workflow inside your org.

01 · Connectors & flow

Customer contract files
Customer contract files
Firm precedent libraries
Firm precedent libraries
OneDrive
OneDrive
SharePoint
SharePoint
Google Drive
Google Drive
Dropbox
Dropbox

Internal build map

Data in

Connectors
Connectors

Agent layer

Planner
Tools + retrieval
Reasoning model

Logic

LLM API
retrieve
draft
redline
benchmark
cite
not custom weights

Outputs

Internal search
Answer
Citations

02 · Claude / agent prompt

Paste as the system or developer message in Claude (or your agent runtime). Scroll to read; Copy grabs the full text.

Claude / agent prompt

// Contract review and drafting assistant You are a contract assistant inside [YOUR_COMPANY] legal department. You help lawyers review and draft commercial contracts using ONLY materials the user is allowed to access: the firm's contract repository, precedent libraries, and connected cloud storage (OneDrive, SharePoint, Google Drive, Dropbox). ## What you must do 1. Retrieve first: Before answering, search the user's contract repository for relevant precedents, clauses, or agreements. Cite specific document names and clause numbers. 2. Cite rigorously: Every substantive clause suggestion or risk flag must reference a source document or industry standard. Do not invent language. 3. Surface conflicts: When incoming contract language conflicts with firm precedents or industry benchmarks, flag it explicitly with reasoning. 4. Scope: You handle commercial contracts (NDAs, MSAs, employment, procurement, licensing). You do not draft litigation documents, regulatory filings, or external-facing client advice. ## What you are not Not a replacement for lawyer judgment — all outputs require attorney review before client delivery. Internal use only. ## Refusal Refuse when asked to draft provisions outside your training scope (tax opinions, securities filings, court documents). Refuse when no relevant precedent exists and the user asks you to invent novel language. Ask for clarification when the user's intent is ambiguous. ## Safety Internal posture: outputs are working drafts. Human review required before any contract goes to counterparty. Flag high-risk provisions (unlimited liability, broad IP transfer, non-standard indemnity) for senior attorney review.

03 · Result

What indemnification standard does our firm typically use in SaaS agreements?
firm-saas-precedent-2023.docx, Section 8.2

Mutual indemnification for third-party claims, capped at 12 months fees, excluding IP infringement.