Spot a gap before signing
A missing dispute-resolution clause gets flagged clearly, rather than discovered only after a disagreement makes its absence a real, genuinely costly problem to deal with.
Available now
In build
The whole team
Nineteen specialists, each with a defined job and an honest status label.
See all nineteenThe business owner sees which standard clauses (termination, liability, confidentiality, dispute resolution) are present, weak, or absent in a contract before signing it, so they know what to specifically ask a lawyer about.
Works with
What it does
The owner uploads a contract and Vakil compares its section headings and content against a general checklist of clauses commonly found in that document type. It produces a coverage list — present, unclear, or missing — with plain-language notes on what each clause type is generally for, without judging whether any specific term favors the reader.
A small agency about to sign a new retainer client has read the contract twice and still isn't sure whether it actually addresses what happens if the relationship goes sour — there's a section on payment, a section on deliverables, but nothing that obviously reads as a dispute-resolution clause, and she can't quite tell if she's missed it or it simply isn't there at all.
Vakil's clause flagger checks the contract's sections against a general checklist of terms commonly found in that type of document — termination, liability, confidentiality, dispute resolution — and reports back which are present, which are unclear, and which appear to be missing entirely. It flags structure, not merit: it will tell her a dispute-resolution clause seems absent. It will not tell her whether the liability clause that is present actually favours her. That is a judgment for her advocate to make.
Vakil runs this directly on the platforms your customers already use — no separate app for them to install.
How it works
Add the agreement as a document, and Vakil identifies its sections and headings to prepare for a structured comparison against a reference list of standard, commonly used clause types found across many similar contracts generally.
Sections are compared to a general checklist of clauses commonly found in that document type, sorting each expected clause into present, unclear, or genuinely missing entirely from the whole document under careful, close, thorough review.
See a table listing each clause type with its status and a plain-language note on what that particular clause type is generally for, without any judgment at all on whether specific terms favour anyone either.
Use the missing or unclear items as a specific list of questions for legal review, rather than a general request to check the entire document again from scratch each and every single time it changes.
Why it matters
A missing dispute-resolution clause gets flagged clearly, rather than discovered only after a disagreement makes its absence a real, genuinely costly problem to deal with.
Instead of asking an advocate to review everything from scratch, the owner can point to exactly which clauses deserve the most attention first, right away.
The report says what's there and what isn't, leaving the judgment of whether any specific term is fair or enforceable entirely to the advocate who reviews it.
The detail
This capability performs one specific, bounded task: it checks whether a contract's sections cover the ground that document type typically covers, and reports the result as present, unclear, or missing. It does this by comparing section headings against a general reference list of clause types for that kind of agreement — a service retainer is generally expected to address payment terms, deliverables, termination, liability, confidentiality, and dispute resolution. When one category doesn't appear to be addressed anywhere, the flagger says so plainly.
What it explicitly does not do is judge the clauses that are present. A liability clause capping damages at the contract value might be entirely standard for a small agency retainer, or it might be unusually favourable to one side — the flagger has no way to know which, because that assessment depends on the specific deal and legal judgment about what's reasonable. This is precisely the distinction the tool preserves: flagging presence is a structural task, while judging fairness is a legal opinion only an advocate can give.
The report is also deliberately not a safety verdict. All expected clauses present means the contract touches every category the checklist expects — it does not mean the contract is safe to sign, because a clause can be present and still badly drafted, one-sided, or unenforceable in a way structural presence-checking cannot detect. A clause phrased unusually can also be missed by the matching process even when it's genuinely there, one more reason the report is a starting point for review, not a substitute for it.
Industry use cases
6 industries where Vakil applies this directly.
A wholesale distributor whose buyer has not paid an invoice 60 days past the agreed term uses the delayed-payment-notice-preparation capability to draft a factual reminder letter and reads the linked explanation of the MSEFC reference process before deciding whether to pursue it.
See the b2b sales playbookA financial advisory firm uses the compliance-deadline-tracker to see upcoming annual filing dates for their private limited company, then separately runs a referral-partner agreement through the document coverage checker before their advocate reviews it.
See the banking and finance playbookA coaching institute founder converting from a proprietorship to a private limited company uses the document-checklist-builder to see what is generally needed, then books a lawyer consultation using the question-prep tool to confirm specifics with an advocate.
See the education playbookA freelance designer uploads a new client's service contract to the plain-english-document-explainer to understand the IP-ownership and payment-milestone clauses, then later uses the delayed-payment-notice-preparation tool when an invoice goes unpaid past its due date.
See the freelancers and consultants playbookA small agency about to sign a new retainer client runs the agreement through the plain-language-clause-flagger to see whether a dispute-resolution clause is present before sending it to their advocate for final review.
See the marketing agencies playbookA landlord dealing with a tenant who stopped paying rent uses the consultation-briefing-fact-organizer to log the missed-payment dates and notices sent, then uses the jurisdiction-and-authority-finder to understand generally whether their state's rent law or a civil suit route is the relevant path, before consulting an advocate.
See the real estate playbookMore from Vakil
The business owner understands what a contract, notice, or legal letter actually says and what it asks of them, without waiting for a lawyer callback just to understand the basics.
Learn moreThe business owner walks into a paid lawyer consultation with an organized list of questions and facts, so the lawyer's limited time is spent advising rather than gathering basic information.
Learn moreThe business owner gets a plain-language overview of a legal topic relevant to their business (e.g., what a security deposit clause typically covers) before they need it urgently.
Learn moreThe business owner knows exactly which documents and pieces of information to collect for a common business task (hiring, renting, registering) before starting it, avoiding wasted trips and delays.
Learn moreThe business gets a professionally structured starting draft for a common business document (NDA, service agreement, offer letter) instead of writing one from a blank page.
Learn moreThe business owner has a clean, chronological record of what happened, when, and with whom for an ongoing dispute or matter, ready to hand to an advocate.
Learn moreQuestions
No. The report checks whether a contract addresses the categories of clause commonly expected for that document type — it says nothing about whether the specific wording in each clause is fair, favourable, or enforceable. A clause can be present and still be poorly drafted or one-sided against you. Full coverage means the structure looks complete, not that the terms themselves have been judged safe to accept.
No, and it's built deliberately not to. Vakil flags whether a clause type is present, unclear, or missing against a general checklist — it doesn't evaluate whether any specific clause's terms favour you or the other party, since that requires legal judgment about your particular deal, which is an advocate's role, not a structural comparison tool's job to perform at all.
That can happen — the matching process compares section content against a reference list, and an unusually phrased or informally titled clause can occasionally be missed, showing as absent when it genuinely isn't. This is exactly why the report is meant as a starting point for a conversation with your advocate rather than a final verdict; a flagged gap is worth confirming either way before acting on it.
Yes — the reference list of expected clauses is matched to the type of document you upload, so a service agreement and an NDA get checked against different expectations suited to what that kind of contract typically needs to cover overall. The categories checked stay general to that document type, though, not tailored specifically to your own deal's unusual terms.
The rest of your stack
No rip-and-replace — see what a contract might be missing works alongside the systems already running your business.
Coming soon