Skip to content

Contract Redline Summariser

Example prompt: "When a new document lands in our 'Incoming Redlines' folder in Google Drive, extract the text, compare it to the matching master template in our 'Contract Templates' folder, and produce a short summary that lists every material change by section — added clauses, removed clauses, and substantive wording changes. Flag anything that looks unusual for the counterparty's industry. Save the summary as a Google Doc in the same folder, and post a Slack message in #legal-review with the counterparty name, a three-bullet highlight, and a link to the full summary."

The Problem

When counterparties return a marked-up contract, a junior lawyer or paralegal usually spends an hour or more reading through the document line by line to find the actual changes and summarise them for the responsible partner. Turn-on-changes is only part of the story — sometimes the counterparty rewrites a whole clause, sometimes they slip a new definition into the recitals. A busy legal team either burns expensive hours on this review or skips the careful pass and trusts the track-changes highlights, which is how unfavourable language sneaks through.

How GloriaMundo Solves It

We build a workflow triggered when a new file appears in a designated Google Drive folder for incoming redlines. A URL extract step pulls the document contents. An integration step locates the corresponding master template in a 'Contract Templates' folder. An LLM step compares the two documents clause by clause and produces a structured summary — what was added, what was removed, and what was reworded — grouped by section. A second LLM step flags any terms that look unusual for the counterparty's industry, based on what is visible in the covering email or filename. The summary is saved as a Google Doc in the same folder. A Slack message goes to the legal review channel with the counterparty name, a three-bullet highlight, and a link to the full summary. Glass Box preview lets you see the summary before it lands in the channel, so you can adjust the framing before partners see it.

Example Workflow Steps

  1. Trigger (webhook): Fires when a new file is uploaded to the 'Incoming Redlines' folder in Google Drive.
  2. Step 1 (integration): Fetch the file and its filename from Google Drive.
  3. Step 2 (url_extract): Extract the document text from the redlined file.
  4. Step 3 (integration): Locate and fetch the matching master template from the 'Contract Templates' folder, matched by the contract type in the filename.
  5. Step 4 (LLM): Compare the two documents clause by clause. Produce a structured summary listing additions, deletions, and substantive wording changes grouped by section.
  6. Step 5 (LLM): Flag any terms that look unusual for the counterparty's industry or deviate from standard positions recorded in the template's playbook notes.
  7. Step 6 (integration): Save the summary as a Google Doc titled "Redline Summary — [counterparty] — [date]" in the same Drive folder.
  8. Step 7 (LLM): Draft a short Slack post with the counterparty name, three-bullet highlights, and the document link.
  9. Step 8 (integration): Send the Slack post to #legal-review.

Integrations Used

  • Google Drive — source folder for incoming redlines and the template library
  • Google Docs — destination for the generated redline summary
  • Slack — posts the review summary to the legal review channel

Who This Is For

In-house counsel, paralegals, and external lawyers who regularly review contracts marked up by counterparties — typically legal teams handling more than five or ten redlined contracts per week, where manual diffing burns meaningful time every day.

Time & Cost Saved

A careful redline review by a junior lawyer or paralegal runs 45-90 minutes per document. This workflow reduces the first pass to a few minutes of reading the summary and checking the Glass Box preview before it posts. For a team handling ten contracts per week, that is 8-12 hours of specialist time recovered, and less chance that a quiet wording change escapes attention. The workflow does not replace final legal judgement — it replaces the tedious, error-prone part of the review.