Freelance Contract Board — 3-Lens Contract Review
How it works
Freelance Contract Board runs your contract through a three-phase adversarial review process instead of a single pass:
Phase 1 — Three independent reviewers, blind. Scope Creep Skeptic, Liability & IP Realist, and Payment Terms Sharpener each review the same contract without seeing each other's notes.
Phase 2 — Cross-examination. Every finding gets challenged or corroborated by the other two lenses — false positives get contested with a concrete reason, and issues that multiple lenses independently flag get marked as a stronger signal.
Phase 3 — Board verdict. Every finding is tagged CONFIRMED / CORROBORATED / DISPUTED, followed by one sign recommendation you can actually act on.
⚠️ Not legal advice. This is a pattern-recognition pass for the contract risks freelancers most commonly get burned by, run by an AI agent — it does not replace a lawyer. For high-value contracts, get an actual attorney to review it.
Sample output
## Phase 3 — Board verdict
1. **[CORROBORATED]** Open-ended "additional services as reasonably requested" clause with a flat fee (Scope Creep + Payment Terms) — renegotiation ask: cap deliverables/revisions explicitly.
2. **[CORROBORATED]** IP transfers "upon creation" while client can terminate at-will before the 45-day payment trigger (Liability & IP + Payment Terms) — renegotiation ask: tie IP transfer to receipt of payment.
**Sign recommendation:** Do not sign as-is — 2 CORROBORATED findings, send renegotiation asks first.
Use cases
- Get a rigorous second opinion on a client contract before signing, without hiring a lawyer for every small gig
- Catch the specific patterns that turn into unpaid work — unbounded scope, IP handed over before payment, net-45+ terms with no teeth
- Use inside Claude Code, Codex, or OpenClaw sessions directly — paste the contract text and go
FAQ
Does this replace a lawyer? No — it's a reasoning-based pattern-recognition pass, not legal advice. For high-value or unusual contracts, get an actual attorney to review it.
What if my contract contains real names or payment amounts? The Skill treats that as context only and won't echo it back beyond what's needed to explain a finding — redact counterparty contact details before pasting if you'd rather not share them.
What if I only have a scope-of-work doc, not a full contract? Paste whatever you have — the board reviews whatever text you give it and will note if a section (e.g. payment terms) isn't covered by what you pasted.
