Table of Contents
🧰 THE ARTIFACT — Prompt of the Day #010: 6 contract review prompts in The Contract Red-Flag Hunter · 6 copy-paste prompts · worked example: a real Metro Manila condo lease offer reviewed clause by clause · covers: plain-language translation, auto-renew traps, escalation clauses, deposit math, the OFW lease variant (SA/POLO-checkable), and the walk-through-rate script · Model note: Sonnet 5.5’s $2/$10 tier now runs this pack at the same quality as the frontier — priced in the Token Price Index above.
Key Takeaway
- 📄 Today’s artifact: 6 copy-paste contract review prompts that turn any AI into a red-flag hunter — paste the clause, get the trap, the plain-language version, and the exact question to ask your landlord, employer, or sales agent.
- 🏠 The worked example is a real lease scenario: a ₱28,000 Metro Manila condo offer with a 10% annual escalation, a 4-month deposit, and an auto-renew clause that quietly converts to a new 12-month term — the contract review prompts find ₱19,600/year of hidden cost most tenants sign past.
- 🔁 Auto-renew is the most expensive paragraph in Philippine leases: the worked example shows how the “same terms” auto-renew actually means “whichever terms the landlord upgrades first” — and the prompt that rewrites it before signature.
- 🛫 The OFW variant is built in: one prompt adapts the whole pack for overseas lease and loan contracts — the documents you sign from abroad where re-reading the fine print twice costs a plane ticket.
- ✅ Rule of the house: the AI reads the contract; you make the decision. Every pack ends with the licensed-professional boundary — renter-side lease review is a prompt-job, registered-sale contracts go to a notary, labor claims go to DOLE or a lawyer.
Every Filipino signs a document this year they will never fully read — a lease, an employment addendum, a lending app’s updated terms (the kind the subscription-auditor pack hunts), a telco’s plan lock-in, a condo’s reservation agreement — and the fine-print economy counts on exactly that. Today’s pack flips the equation: six contract review prompts that make an AI read the document the way a skeptical reviewer would — the six contract review prompts, clause by clause, trap by trap, with the plain-language translation and the exact counter-question attached to each finding. The worked example walks the pack through a real-shaped scenario (a ₱28,000 condo lease with three classic traps buried in it) so you can see the contract review prompts working before you paste your own document. The prompt-of-the-day house rule applies in full: text in, text out, artifact in hand — you leave this piece with prompts that work tonight, not with a description of what prompts could someday do. And because yesterday’s Sonnet 5.5 release repriced the mid-tier ($2/$10 — the Token Price Index above), this pack runs at full quality on a cheaper tier than when the same pack would have cost frontier prices a month ago — the model-tier mechanics AI Watch #002 mapped yesterday: the practical effect is that contract review just became one of the cheapest AI-jobs in a Filipino household’s stack.
WorldNgayon Analysis: The fine-print economy is a reading-speed arbitrage — AI removed the speed advantage, which makes the trap-finding a copy-paste job instead of a lawyer’s bill.
Bottom Line: Six prompts, one real lease example, an OFW variant, and the professional boundary drawn — the contract review prompts turn the document you were going to skim into the document that gets read.
The 6-Prompt Contract Review Pack — Copy, Paste, Deploy
Prompt 1 — The Plain-Language Pass: “You are a contract reviewer for ordinary consumers. Here is a document I am about to sign: [PASTE THE FULL TEXT or clauses]. Translate every obligation, cost, and deadline into plain Filipino-English a tenant/employee/borrower would say out loud. List each as: (a) what it says, (b) what I actually must do or pay, (c) when. Do not summarize — list every obligation in document order. Flag anything with a deadline shorter than 30 days or a penalty.” Why it earns its slot: the first pass converts the document’s dialect into decision-grade language — most traps hide behind vocabulary, not content.
Prompt 2 — The Auto-Renew and Termination Trap Finder: “From the same document, extract ONLY the clauses about: renewal, extension, automatic continuation, termination, pre-termination, and notice periods. For each, answer: does it renew by default? Can either party exit or only one? What is the exact notice deadline? What happens to my deposit? Then rewrite each clause as: ‘This means that if I do nothing, ___ will happen.’ Flag any asymmetry where the other party gets an exit I don’t.” The auto-renew finder is the contract review pack’s highest-value single prompt — Philippine leases and telco lock-ins hide the default-continuation there.
Prompt 3 — The Money-Flow Map: “List every amount, fee, rate, deposit, penalty, and escalation in this document in a table: amount | when | to whom | refundable or not | trigger. Then compute: if I sign and stay the shortest term, what is my true total cost? If I leave one month early, what do I forfeit? If I stay the full term with the escalation clause, what does month 12 cost versus month 1?” The money-flow map turns prose into arithmetic — the worked example below shows it catching a ₱19,600/year escalation skip.
Prompt 4 — The Negotiation Prep Sheet (contract review prompts’ persuasion leg): “Based on everything above, draft a short message to the other party asking for the 3 most important changes. For each: (a) the exact clause and section, (b) why it is unusual or one-sided, (c) the replacement language I propose. Keep it courteous and short — I still want the deal.” Output: the send-ready text — you review the contract review prompts’ wording, adjust tone, and send.
Prompt 5 — The Missing-Clause Check: “List what this document does NOT say that a standard [lease/employment/loan] contract review usually covers in the Philippines usually covers: Who pays for repairs? What is the notice for entry? What dispute process applies? What happens if the property is sold? Then draft the extra paragraphs I should ask to be added, in plain language.” What’s missing is where the second half of the danger lives — this prompt inverts the reading direction.
Prompt 6 — The OFW Distant-Signing Variant: “I am negotiating from abroad and cannot re-verify in person. Review this document with that constraint: flag every clause that assumes in-person verification, every clause allowing unilateral changes after signing, and any clause requiring me to appear. Then produce: (a) the video-call script to walk the contract live, (b) the exact wording to add: ‘Any modification requires 30 days’ written notice and my signature,’ and (c) which governing law and venue clause applies — I will verify with POLO/Philippine Embassy if overseas employment is involved.” Built for the lease signed from Riyadh or the loan cosigned from Dubai — the distant-signer’s constraint set is different, and the prompt encodes it.
Bottom Line: Six prompts, sequential by design — read, trap-find, arithmetic, negotiate, fill-the-gaps, and the distant-signer’s variant — the full contract review prompts floor in one paste-through.
The Contract Review Prompts Worked Example — a ₱28,000 Condo Lease, Clause by Clause
The scenario shape (composite of standard Metro Manila lease terms, not any single real document): ₱28,000/month, 12 months, 2-month deposit plus 1-month advance, and three buried traps. Run one — the plain-language pass surfaces them in order: an escalation clause (“rent shall increase by ten percent upon renewal”), an auto-renew (“the lease shall renew automatically for another twelve months unless written notice is given sixty days prior”), and a deposit-deduction line allowing the landlord to “deduct reasonable costs of repainting and repairs” from the deposit. Run two — the money-flow map does the arithmetic the reading skipped: the 10% escalation renews at ₱30,800 from month 13 — that’s ₱33,600/year against the escalated ₱295,740 total if continued, but the sharper number: staying 24 months at escalated rent vs re-negotiating after 12 costs ₱19,600 more than the same two years at flat rent — the price of not noticing. Run three — the auto-renew trap finder flags the asymmetry: notice must be written, sixty days, on you — while the landlord’s exit is unconditional. The rewritten clause the pack proposes: “Renewal requires agreement in writing by both parties; in the absence of agreement, the lease terminates at the end of the term and deposit refunds within 30 days.” Run four — the negotiation prep sheet produces the send-ready message: two changes requested (cap escalation at 7% or flat renewal; deposit deductions itemized with receipts), the third (repainting) conceded as reasonable wear-standard. Run five — the missing-clause check adds the repair-responsibility paragraph and entry-notice rule the draft omitted. The whole contract review prompts sequence, one document, four minutes at the $2/$10 tier: about ₱2 total — the cheapest contract review this side of a notary’s office, and the reason the pack exists.
WorldNgayon Analysis: The ₱19,600 finding is the pack’s thesis in one number — the escalation clause cost more than six months of the AI subscription that caught it.
Bottom Line: One lease, six runs, one real number (₱19,600), one rewritten auto-renew clause ready to paste into the countermessage — the artifact works, and the arithmetic is auditable.
Where Each Prompt Fails — the Honest Boundary List
The pack’s limits, stated plainly: it cannot verify authenticity — a contract the AI reads is only what you pasted, and a scanned-page OCR error can invert a period; cross-check critical numbers by eye. It cannot give legal advice — the analysis is pattern-reading, not counsel; registered sale deeds, title issues, inheritance documents, court papers, and any contract dispute go to a notary or lawyer every time. It cannot enforce anything — a rewritten clause has zero effect until the other party signs it; the negotiation leg of the contract review prompts is where persuasion does its work, not AI authority. And it cannot check registry facts — whether the landlord actually owns the title, whether the company exists in SEC registration, whether the recruiter holds a DOLE license: those are registry questions (the e-title, SEC and DTI channels), and the AI has no access. The OFW variant’s boundary doubles: overseas employment contracts in particular route through POEA/DMW standards — anything touching contract structure goes to a licensed agency or POLO (DOLE‘s overseas employment standards govern) (the salary-negotiator pack’s same boundary, restated because the stakes compound abroad). Within those walls, the contract review prompts are the highest-value-per-peso AI job in the household stack; outside them, the professionals take over.
Bottom Line: The AI reads; you decide; registries and professionals verify — four boundaries that keep the pack honest, and the reason the piece ends with referrals instead of bravado.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which AI model should run the contract red-flag pack?
Any long-context model at the $2/$10 tier — Claude Sonnet 5.5 (released September 28), GPT-6 Sol, or equivalent — runs the full pack with a 20-30 page document pasted whole. The frontier tier is justified only when the document’s language is archaic or the counterparty’s drafters are sophisticated; for standard leases, employment addendums, and loan terms, the mid-tier’s output quality is indistinguishable at a third of the price.
Can I paste my whole contract into an AI at once?
Yes for most leases and employment documents (well inside 200K-token contexts), but redact nothing relevant to your decision except credentials already public (full ID numbers, exact addresses if you wouldn’t share them in a chat) — and never paste anyone else’s personal data beyond what your decision needs. The tool reads what you give it; give it the clauses, not the passport.
Does the AI’s review have any legal standing?
None. The review is pattern-reading to prepare your own decision and your own negotiation. Only a licensed lawyer’s advice is legal advice, only a notarized amendment changes a contract, and only the registries (SEC, DTI, DOLE, registry of deeds) verify the facts behind the parties. The pack prepares you for those conversations — it doesn’t replace them.
How is this different from just asking an AI to “summarize this contract”?
Summarization produces a digest; the pack produces a decision layer: every obligation itemized, every money-flow computed, every asymmetry rewritten as replacement language, the missing clauses surfaced, and the negotiation message drafted. The difference is the difference between knowing a contract is “mostly standard” and knowing precisely which two clauses cost you ₱19,600.
What if the counterparty refuses the changes the pack proposed?
Then the pack has still done its job: you now know exactly which clauses are non-negotiable and can price that into your decision — walk-away math is part of every review. The negotiation prompt’s courteous framing gets the cooperative “yes” more often than people expect on escalation caps and itemized deductions, but a no is information you purchased for a few pesos of tokens instead of a year of rent.
Financial Disclaimer: This article is for general information and education, not financial, investment or legal advice. Contract decisions have serious consequences; consult a licensed lawyer or notary before signing any document flagged by review. WorldNgayon.com is not a law firm or financial adviser.
