I built a tool that shows what a contract could cost you before signing

Curious - what’s the hardest part when reviewing a contract before signing?

This is a smart angle. “What could this contract cost me?” is much easier for founders to act on than a generic legal summary, especially right before signing when time and attention are limited. I also like that you’re grounding it in real agreements instead of treating it like a theoretical risk checker. Have you noticed whether users care more about the dollar impact, the risky clauses themselves, or just getting a quick yes/no confidence check before they move forward?

This is a genuinely useful tool - contract risks are one of those things that seem obvious in hindsight but are easy to miss in the moment. The "right before signing" use case is smart positioning.

I like that you focused on financial risk and one-sided clauses - those are the gotchas that hurt small businesses most. Have you considered adding a feature for simulating "what if" scenarios? Like showing how much a termination clause could cost if triggered?

Interesting wedge. The best part of the product is the moment right before signing when someone asks “what could actually hurt me here?” I’d lean harder into that than “AI contract review.”

A few concrete tests:

1. Make the hero more specific: “spot the clauses most likely to cost you money before you sign.”
2. Move the auto-renewal example higher and style it like real product output — it’s your strongest proof.
3. Narrow the first buyer wedge. If early users are founders reviewing vendor / SaaS / partnership docs, say that before broadening to everyone.
4. Add one trust boundary near upload: not legal advice, private by default, best for first-pass risk spotting before counsel review.
5. Rename the CTA around the outcome: “Find risky clauses” will probably convert better than more generic review language.

If useful, I can do a brutally specific $1 teardown of the landing page / first-upload flow and mark up the exact sections I’d rewrite: https://dailo.com.au/roastmysite?source=external_manual_ih_vidi_contractrisk_apr15_usd_presell_hv

Interesting niche. The "hidden cost" angle is smart because it reframes contract review from a boring compliance task into a financial decision - which is how founders actually think.

I'm curious about the data model here. Are you building up a dataset of common contract gotchas over time? Because the real value compound would be: the more contracts analyzed, the better your risk benchmarks become. Like "this auto-renewal clause is in the top 10% most aggressive we've seen."

What's been the main objection from early users - is it trust ("I don't want to upload my contract") or skepticism about the accuracy?

This is inspiring, I just started my own journey today

This is a great insight — "the biggest risks are usually not obvious." That's true in contracts and honestly in almost every financial decision. People focus on the headline number and miss the fine print that actually costs them.

I'm building something in a completely different space (crypto purchasing power) but ran into the same pattern — people stare at the Bitcoin price and miss that inflation is quietly eating their real returns. The hidden cost that nobody reads the fine print on.

Curious about your approach: are you using AI to flag the risky clauses, or is it rule-based? The "is this safe?" framing is smart — that's how normal people actually think about contracts, not "analyze this for legal compliance." You nailed the UX angle.

How are you thinking about monetization? Per-contract fee, subscription, or freemium?

This is a really valuable problem to solve. The “is this safe?” use case before signing is especially smart — that’s exactly when the stress is highest and clarity matters most.

Curious — how well does your tool currently handle subtle power imbalances or long-term relationship risks (like non-compete, IP assignment, or automatic renewal traps)?

Those seem to be the ones that quietly cause the most pain down the line.
Congrats on shipping this after 7 weeks — looks like a genuinely useful tool.

This is a really strong use case, that “is this safe?” moment right before signing is exactly where something like this matters.

One thing I’m curious about:

Right now, after someone gets the analysis, do they actually act on it?
Like renegotiate, question clauses, or share it with someone else?

Feels like there’s an opportunity to extend that moment a bit, not just “here’s the risk”, but guiding them into:
– what to question
– how to respond
– or even letting them simulate “what happens if I sign this vs push back”

I’ve been working on something where tools like this become more of a guided flow instead of a one-off output, especially for high-stakes decisions like this.

Might be interesting to test, since your users already come in with strong intent.

Curious what you’ve seen so far, do people treat it as a final check, or actually use it to make decisions?

Love the positioning. Highlighting risk > just explaining clauses. Curious though, how do you avoid false positives or over-warning? Feels like too many ‘risks’ could make users ignore the signal.

The trust problem you describe extends past the signing moment. Even with a solid contract, disputes about what was actually approved are surprisingly common once work is underway — and there's usually no paper trail for the execution side.

Two separate trust gaps: the contract risk before signing (what you're solving), and the approval proof during execution. Both are real, and both expensive when they go wrong.

Building something for the ongoing approval side (proofsent.com) — the contract-before and the proof-during feel like natural complements for anyone doing long-term client work.

This feels like one of those products where the real value isn’t in “analyzing documents” but in reducing decision anxiety at high-stakes moments.

Most founders don’t avoid legal mistakes because they’re careless — they make them because risk is buried in language they technically understand but can’t properly evaluate.

I think framing it around “Is this safe?” is a huge insight because that’s the actual job users are hiring the product for. They’re not buying analysis; they’re buying confidence before commitment.

Curious — have you found users care more about identifying specific red flags, or do they mainly want an overall trust/risk score before diving deeper?

This is really interesting — especially the point about risks not being obvious.

Curious, how are you handling edge cases where context matters a lot (like negotiation history or verbal agreements)?

I’m working on a tool in the freelancer space and seeing a similar pattern — people don’t just want analysis, they want quick confidence before making a decision.

Would love to know what kind of feedback you’re getting from early users.

I love learning the true tale of how something was built, especially the choices that aren't immediately apparent. When working on this, what was the biggest obstacle you didn't anticipate?

Interesting perspective — especially the part about distribution.

Curious: what channel worked best for your first users?

Most founders don’t lose money reading contracts — they lose it misunderstanding risk.
Building something that highlights financial risk + one-sided clauses before signing.
Also, there’s a comp live — $19 entry, winner gets a Tokyo trip. Just opened.
Tokyolore.com

This is a lifesaver for founders. I’m curious, do you think this could be applied to Sales Service Agreements specifically? I’m currently building an outreach automation tool (AutoSales) and my users often struggle with the fine print in agency contracts. Would love to hear your thoughts on that niche!

This is very interesting, and I see a utility for freelancers as well.

May i know if it can help freelancers assess the risks of the contract? ( i am skeptical if it is trained for >$40k contract values).

Also is it like a model which has been trained on multiple agreements, where it is told x should be flagged and y is ok? How does this work

Boa ideia

Spot on — the biggest risks are rarely the obvious ones. I've seen the exact same pattern, but with business systems instead of contracts.

As a consultant who's done 20+ years of system analysis, I spent the last year building a SaaS platform that does the same for organisations: uncovers performance risks that explain why a company can't deliver what leaders need.

Like your tool, it's not about generic analysis — it's about surfacing the hidden constraints right when decisions get made (scaling blocks, delivery failures, capability gaps).

The resonance for me is identical: founders don't fail because they lack ambition, but because the system underneath isn't set up for it.

Curious if you've seen overlap between contract risks and operational system risks? Would love thoughts from anyone building in this space.

That “is this safe?” framing is brilliant. Founders usually are not looking for a full legal analysis. They want a fast, practical gut-check before they sign. That is a very different product from “legal AI,” and I agree most tools seem to miss that distinction.

My honest question is about the trust gap.

I have friends who signed 30+ contracts — payment processors, cloud vendors, APIs, and similar agreements — and the clauses that felt most dangerous were rarely the obvious ones. It was usually something buried deeper: indemnification language a few pages in, a liability cap hidden in a schedule, or some subtle wording that only a good lawyer would catch.

So how do you handle that?

If the tool misses something important and a user gets burned, they are probably going to blame the tool, not themselves. That feels especially tricky when the product promise is basically, “Should I sign this?”

Do you handle that by leaning heavily on educational framing and disclaimers? Or do you take a stronger approach, where the product clearly says, “We flag these categories of risk, and we do not cover these other areas”?

Agreed, reading the finer details while signing a contract are always left out.

yeah that’s actually where people get burned, not the obvious stuff but the little clauses buried in there… termination, liability caps, payment terms, that’s where it bites later, tool sounds useful if it flags real risks and not just highlights random legal jargon, but I’d still never trust AI alone on anything big, more like a second pair of eyes before a real lawyer, not a replacement

I actually love that framing. ~

That's the key I think. So many tools just provide the "what the contract says" without ever addressing the real fear – "what could come back to haunt me".

The "is this safe?" approach seems so much more relatable.

And maybe that's why they're using it just before they sign, and not far earlier. It's that pre-committal safety check. In fact I'd lean into that even harder and position it as less of a "tool" and more of a second opinion.

The equivalent of "sanity check before I sign and it all goes wrong".

Curious as to whether you considered showing more concrete consequences?

Not just "these terms are risky" but maybe "based on these terms, you could be liable for $X if event Y occurs".

I feel like that's more memorable.

Overall though, I think this is one of those ideas where positioning is paramount. It's got massive potential as is.

Love the framing here — people don’t lose money by not reading, but by not understanding.
That’s painfully accurate. Curious how you’re defining/quantifying “risk” under the hood?

This hits home, Meirambek! 🛡️

I'm doing something similar for the "Design/Trust" side with RoastMyLanding. After 96 audits this week, I've realized founders are just as "blind" to their own landing page flaws as they are to risky contract clauses.

The shift from "analysis" to "Is this safe?" is a massive insight. People don't want more data; they want peace of mind before they hit "publish." Great concept, keep building!

This is really thoughtful! I like how you’re focusing on the real problem founders face, not just reading contracts, but actually understanding the hidden risks before signing.

That shift from “analysis” to “is this safe?” feels very smart and practical.
The concept of uploading a contract and getting clear risk highlights sounds genuinely useful.

One thing that stood out to me though: the value really clicks after reading your post here, but it might not come across as strongly in those first few moments when someone lands on the product. That feeling of “here’s what actually matters before you sign” is powerful, but I’m not sure it lands immediately.

Really strong direction overall, it feels very human and solves a painful problem.
I’m genuinely curious how you’re thinking about making that clarity hit faster in the first experience, would love to hear your approach.

this is a problem a lot of service business owners run into, honestly. the contract stuff is just one layer though. another one we kept hitting was communication, clients texting founders directly with no visibility for the rest of the team. been working on that exact problem too. love seeing tools like this that fix the real friction points before they become expensive mistakes.

this insight about the "right before signing" moment is spot on. That's when people actually need help, not during some theoretical review weeks earlier.

we see the same pattern with SaaS tools. founders spend weeks researching platforms but make the final decision in 10 minutes based on pricing page clarity. timing matters more than depth sometimes.

the buried risk thing is universal. it's never the obvious clauses that get you. always something like auto-renewal terms or liability caps that seemed harmless at first glance.

This is a real problem and you've nailed the insight. Most founders skim contracts looking for obvious red flags but miss the structural ones buried in control and exit clauses.

Curious to know how are you handling the nuance between "this clause is risky" vs "this clause is risky for your specific situation"?

A one-sided exit clause means something very different for a bootstrapped founder vs a VC-backed one.

That context layer seems like the hardest part to get right.

This is actually super useful. People often overlook the hidden costs until they’re locked in. How are you calculating the risk or uncertainty in contracts?

This is really cool, feels similar to a problem I’ve been seeing on the revenue side.
A lot of SaaS founders don’t realize they’re losing 5–9% of MRR to failed payments until it’s too late.
Interesting how many “invisible costs” exist in SaaS.

this is such a smart use case. service businesses especially get burned by contract terms they didn't fully internalize before signing. a travel advisor friend of mine once had a client dispute that came down to a single clause about payment timelines that neither party had really focused on. a tool like this at the moment of signing is exactly the right timing. curious whether you're targeting a specific vertical or going broad initially.

This is the part that jumped out at me: "people use it right before signing — asking 'is this safe?'" That's a completely different product shape than "analysis tool," and it's exactly the kind of insight you only get from real usage, not a spec doc. If I were in your seat, I'd lean hard into that framing — the pre-signing moment is a narrow, high-intent window where speed and a clear yes/no matter more than thoroughness.

On my own indie app (a lightweight memo tool), I had the same experience: the core use case I designed for wasn't the one users actually came back for. Renaming the onboarding to match the real behavior moved activation noticeably.

Quick question — how are you capturing which clauses users click into most? That signal seems like a goldmine for deciding what to highlight by default.

We are looking for someone who can lend our holding company 200,000 US dollars.

We are looking for an investor who can lend our holding company 200,000 US dollars.

We are looking for an investor who can invest 200,000 US dollars in our holding company.

With the 200,000 US dollars you will lend to our holding company, our finance team will invest the money in the stock market and some business sectors, thus making a significant profit for both of us.

With your 200,000 US dollars investment in our holding company, our finance team will invest it in the stock market and 4 different business sectors, significantly increasing our profits within a few months.

Your 200,000 US dollars investment in our holding company will be invested by our finance team in the stock market and several business sectors.

The 200,000 US dollars you will invest in our holding company will be used by our finance team in the stock market and in 4 different business areas.

Which business sectors will be invested in?

Money will be increased by investing in major sectors such as cybersecurity, software, furniture, and e-commerce.

With the 200,000 US dollars you have invested in our holding company, we will invest in major sectors such as cybersecurity, software, furniture, and e-commerce.

With the $200,000 USD budget you've invested in our holding company, we will significantly increase our profits within just a few months by investing in high-market sectors such as cybersecurity, software, furniture, and e-commerce.

If we use the 200,000 US dollars you invested in our holding company across four different business sectors, our earnings will increase rapidly.

By dividing the 200,000 US dollars into different business areas, we will reduce the loss rate to zero.

By investing the 200,000 US dollars you lent to our holding company in the stock market and four different business areas, we will rapidly increase the rate of return on investment.

We will use the 200,000 US dollars you lent to our holding company to rapidly increase our profits by investing in sectors such as stock market and cybersecurity, software, furniture, and e-commerce.

Our finance team will use the 200,000 US dollars you lent to our holding company to invest in the stock market and in high-market sectors such as cybersecurity, software, furniture, and e-commerce.

By using 200,000 US dollars in 4 different business sectors, we will generate a significant amount of income within a few months.

So how will we market the products we produce?

Thanks to our strong advertising network, we will be able to sell the products we produce quickly.

Thanks to our strong advertising network, we will quickly find customers for the products and projects we will produce.

Thanks to our strong advertising network, we will attract a large audience to our projects, which means we will quickly generate significant revenue.

By using WhatsApp groups, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook groups, TikTok, Telegram groups, LinkedIn, and many other high-traffic social media platforms for advertising, we will be able to conduct large-scale advertising.

By using various advertising tactics such as Facebook ads, YouTube ads, Google ads, and email advertising, we will be able to rapidly increase our customer base.

We will also try to attract an audience by using social media applications and websites from different countries.

We have 170 social media accounts, and by simply running ads on these platforms, we can reach an audience of 300,000 people within a week.

We are able to announce our projects to 300,000 people in just one week.

What will your earnings be?

If you invest 200,000 US dollars in our holding company, you will receive your money back as 750,000 US dollars on December 30, 2026.

If you lend our holding company 200,000 US dollars, I will return your money as 750,000 US dollars on 30/12/2026.

You will lend our holding company 200,000 US dollars, and I will return your money as 750,000 US dollars on December 30, 2026.

If you invest 200,000 US dollars in our holding company, you will receive your money back as 750,000 US dollars on December 30, 2026.

I will return your money to you as 750,000 US dollars on December 30, 2026.

You will receive your 200,000 US dollars, which you lent to our holding company, back as 750,000 US dollars on December 30, 2026.

If you lend our holding company 200,000 US dollars, I will return your money as 750,000 US dollars on 30/12/2026.

Your investment of 200,000 US dollars in our holding company will be evaluated by our finance team, and I will return your money to you as 750,000 US dollars on December 30, 2026.

I will refund your money as 750,000 US dollars on 30/12/2026.

By investing 200,000 US dollars in our holding company, you will generate significant returns within a few months.

Thanks to our financial project, you will significantly multiply your money within a few months.

How can you contact us?

To learn how you can lend our holding company 200,000 US dollars, you can get detailed information by sending a message to the WhatsApp number, Telegram username, or Signal number below.

For detailed information, please send a message to the WhatsApp number, Telegram username, or Signal number below. I will provide you with detailed information.

To learn how you can increase your money by investing 200,000 US dollars in our holding company, send a message to the WhatsApp number, Telegram username, or Signal number below. I will provide you with detailed information.

To learn how you can invest 200,000 US dollars in our holding company and to get detailed information about our project, please send a message to the WhatsApp number, Telegram username, or Signal number below.

You can get detailed information by sending a message to the following WhatsApp number, Telegram username, or Signal number.

To learn how you can increase your money and get detailed information, send a message to our WhatsApp number, Telegram username, or Signal number below. We will provide you with detailed information.

My WhatsApp contact number:
+212 619-202847

my telegram username:
@adenholding

Signal contact number:
+447842572711

Signal username:
adenholding.88

Excellent idea. But I want to know how you managed the context. Some AI models are not capable of analysing and remembering the bad points, especially if you upload a contract that is 100s of pages long. It deviates easily. So, wondering how you managed it.

This is one of those problems where you don't realize how much it matters until you've been burned by it. I signed a SaaS vendor agreement last year that had an auto-renewal clause buried in paragraph 14 that locked us in for another year before we even noticed. Would've been nice to have something flag that before I signed.

Curious about the UX - when someone uploads a contract, how quickly does the analysis come back? And do you highlight the specific clauses inline or is it more of a summary report? I think the inline approach would be killer for people who are skimming contracts right before a deadline (which let's be honest is most of us).

This is really useful. I feel like a lot of people sign contracts without fully understanding the risks this could save people a lot of money.

"The biggest risks are usually not obvious" — this is exactly right. Most people skim contracts looking for obvious red flags, but the dangerous parts are buried in exit clauses and liability caps.
Smart to focus on the "is this safe?" moment right before signing. That's when people actually need help, not during a theoretical review.

this is cool. I wonder how this works exactly. Does it analyze the wording and there's an algorithm in the background that determines the risk based on one sided clauses etc?

This is interesting — especially the “right before signing” use case.

Feels like that moment is less about analysis and more about confidence / reassurance. Almost like people want a second brain to sanity-check what they’re about to commit to.

Curious — have you seen people hesitate because of trust (like relying on it for something high-stakes), or are they pretty quick to use it once they land there?

this is great keep going, also depending upon the type of contract what is essential should be given as a reference because most of the time the problem comes from the fact that neither party pays attention to the details which results in scope creep later, also an Advisory section would be great too

I have also developed a wonderful browser game that is famous for it's own you can try it as well

Interesting angle!

In my experience, the risk often comes from what's missing in the contract. Have you considered building detection for absent clauses, and if so, how would you tackle that?

Coming from fintech, I’ve seen how the real risk is almost never in the obvious clauses — it’s always buried in edge cases like exit terms, liability, or control

this is a real problem

from business side - most mistakes come from “looks fine” contracts

what you’re building makes sense, especially before signing

keep going 👍