Review & Revise

Use these prompts to strengthen, refine, and pressure-test existing drafts. These prompts help identify inconsistencies, weak arguments, unclear language, risky deviations, and structural issues.

Find Inconsistencies

Spot contradictions, conflicts, or cross-reference errors inside a document.

Find any inconsistencies, contradictions, or cross-reference errors in this document. Quote the conflicting language and explain the issue.

For a more detailed result, see Identify Internal Inconsistencies and Cross-Reference Errors.

Research & Strategize

A quick pass to strengthen the arguments and clarity of an existing draft.

Revise this draft to strengthen its arguments, improve clarity, and tighten the language. Keep my intent and structure intact

For a more detailed result, see Revise and Strengthen a Draft.

Revise and Strengthen a Draft

Improves an existing draft's arguments, structure, and persuasive force without rewriting your intent.

Review the attached draft and revise it to strengthen its arguments, sharpen its reasoning, and tighten its language. Keep my intent, structure, and core positions intact. For each significant change you make, briefly note what you changed and why. Flag any argument that is weakly supported, any claim that needs a citation, and any section where the logic could be tightened further.

Works best when the draft is fully written but not yet polished. For a fresh draft from scratch, use Draft a Counter-Position or Response instead.

Improve My Prompt

Get a structured evaluation of a prompt you've drafted and a refined version you can paste back into Paxton.

Evaluate the prompt I'm about to share against four criteria — clarity, precision, depth, and relevance — and return a sharpened version I can use immediately. Score each 1–5 with a one-line justification, identify the prompt's strengths and weaknesses, and suggest the specific changes that would improve output without changing intent. Don't soften the feedback. End with a clean revised prompt ready to paste.

Reach for this when a previous prompt didn't give you what you wanted — drop it in and the model will tell you why and how to fix it.

Stress-Test Your Own Draft

Run a devil's-advocate critique of a draft you've written so you can find the weak points before someone else does.

Critique the attached draft as opposing counsel preparing to respond. For each argument or position, identify the weakest links — assumptions, leaps, or stretched authority — and surface the strongest counterargument, including any limiting or contrary authority. Suggest the specific fix or hedge that would shore each up. Don't soften the critique. If material weaknesses surface, name them.

Pairs especially well with Paxton's legal research database turned on — let it pull authority into the critique.

Identify Internal Inconsistencies and Cross-Reference Errors

Catch internal contradictions and broken cross-references in a long document before they become disputes.

Analyze the attached document for internal inconsistencies and broken cross-references — provisions that conflict with each other, defined terms used inconsistently, and section, exhibit, or schedule citations that don't resolve correctly. For each, quote the language, cite each location, and explain the practical consequence. If anything could be read either way, flag it rather than declaring one reading correct.

Especially high-value on long contracts and multi-amendment documents where edits have piled up.

Identify Missing or Ambiguous Terms

Find gaps and ambiguous language you'd want to fix or ask about before the document is final.

Identify provisions that would typically appear in a document of this type but are missing, and any language that is ambiguous, vague, or open to more than one reasonable interpretation. Explain why each matters and what could go wrong. Distinguish substantive gaps from stylistic preferences, and flag anything you cannot fully evaluate without additional context.

Pairs well with "Identify Risks and Red Flags" (what's there) and "Identify Internal Inconsistencies" (what conflicts).

Compare Two Documents

Get a substantive, topic-organized comparison of two versions or two related documents.

Analyze the two attached documents and identify the substantive differences between them, organized by topic rather than line-by-line. For each meaningful difference, explain the impact, who it benefits, and whether the change is unusual or one-sided. Note any change that would shift risk or alter the deal. If a change is ambiguous in effect, flag it rather than assuming intent.

Strongest when comparing two contract drafts, two briefs on the same motion, or an original vs. a revised order.

Compare Against a Standard

Measure a document against your playbook, template, or a prior version and flag every meaningful deviation.

Analyze the attached document against the standard, template, or prior version also attached or available in this matter. For each material deviation, explain what changed and who it benefits, and note whether the deviation falls within typical negotiation range or warrants pushback. Skip cosmetic differences. If you cannot locate the comparison reference, say so rather than fabricating one.

Have your standard or playbook attached alongside the document, or saved into the matter — the prompt won't ask you to paste it inline.

Apply Specific Edits to an Existing Draft

Implements specific edits you've described while preserving the draft's purpose and consistency, and flags any change that creates a problem.

Apply the edits I've described to the attached draft. Preserve the document's purpose, legal theory, factual accuracy, and defined terms unless an edit requires otherwise. Before applying, flag any requested change that creates a legal, factual, or consistency problem. Return a clean revised version and a short change log.

Best for follow-ups like 'make it shorter,' 'add this fact,' or 'implement your recommendations' once a draft is in the conversation.