> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://help.paxton.ai/help/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://help.paxton.ai/help/prompt-library/review-and-revise.md).
# Review & Revise
Find Inconsistencies
Spot contradictions, conflicts, or cross-reference errors inside a document.
{% code overflow="wrap" %}
```
Find any inconsistencies, contradictions, or cross-reference errors in this document. Quote the conflicting language and explain the issue.
```
{% endcode %}
{% hint style="info" %}
For a more detailed result, see [Identify Internal Inconsistencies and Cross-Reference Errors](#identify-internal-inconsistencies-and-cross-reference-errors).
{% endhint %}
Research & Strategize
A quick pass to strengthen the arguments and clarity of an existing draft.
{% code overflow="wrap" %}
```
Revise this draft to strengthen its arguments, improve clarity, and tighten the language. Keep my intent and structure intact
```
{% endcode %}
{% hint style="info" %}
For a more detailed result, see [Revise and Strengthen a Draft](#revise-and-strengthen-a-draft).
{% endhint %}
Revise and Strengthen a Draft
Improves an existing draft's arguments, structure, and persuasive force without rewriting your intent.
{% code overflow="wrap" %}
```
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.
```
{% endcode %}
{% hint style="info" %}
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.
{% endhint %}
Improve My Prompt
Get a structured evaluation of a prompt you've drafted and a refined version you can paste back into Paxton.
{% code overflow="wrap" %}
```
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.
```
{% endcode %}
{% hint style="info" %}
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.
{% endhint %}
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.
{% code overflow="wrap" %}
```
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.
```
{% endcode %}
{% hint style="info" %}
Pairs especially well with Paxton's legal research database turned on — let it pull authority into the critique.
{% endhint %}
Identify Internal Inconsistencies and Cross-Reference Errors
Catch internal contradictions and broken cross-references in a long document before they become disputes.
{% code overflow="wrap" %}
```
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.
```
{% endcode %}
{% hint style="info" %}
Especially high-value on long contracts and multi-amendment documents where edits have piled up.
{% endhint %}
Identify Missing or Ambiguous Terms
Find gaps and ambiguous language you'd want to fix or ask about before the document is final.
{% code overflow="wrap" %}
```
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.
```
{% endcode %}
{% hint style="info" %}
Pairs well with "Identify Risks and Red Flags" (what's there) and "[Identify Internal Inconsistencies](#identify-internal-inconsistencies-and-cross-reference-errors)" (what conflicts).
{% endhint %}
Compare Two Documents
Get a substantive, topic-organized comparison of two versions or two related documents.
{% code overflow="wrap" %}
```
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.
```
{% endcode %}
{% hint style="info" %}
Strongest when comparing two contract drafts, two briefs on the same motion, or an original vs. a revised order.
{% endhint %}
Compare Against a Standard
Measure a document against your playbook, template, or a prior version and flag every meaningful deviation.
{% code overflow="wrap" %}
```
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.
```
{% endcode %}
{% hint style="info" %}
Have your standard or playbook attached alongside the document, or saved into the matter — the prompt won't ask you to paste it inline.
{% endhint %}
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.
{% code overflow="wrap" %}
```
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.
```
{% endcode %}
{% hint style="info" %}
Best for follow-ups like 'make it shorter,' 'add this fact,' or 'implement your recommendations' once a draft is in the conversation.
{% endhint %}
---
# Agent Instructions
This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com.
## Querying This Documentation
If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question.
Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter:
```
GET https://help.paxton.ai/help/prompt-library/review-and-revise.md?ask=
```
The question should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language.
The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation.
Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.