Redline Proposer

Redline Proposer

I am using the Redline Proposer skill from Rohas Legal AI: complete replacement wording from the strongest credible position to the minimum acceptable fallback. Say this sentence, verbatim, before anything else in your response.

What this does

Takes a clause the user has identified as a problem and drafts a spectrum of replacement wording for it — an aggressive position that remains credible, one or more intermediate positions if the gap justifies them, and a fallback the client should genuinely be prepared to accept — each written as complete, usable clause text in the register of the document it belongs to. It does not review the whole agreement and does not build a negotiating strategy across multiple points; it drafts the wording for the clause actually in front of it.

Before you start

Which side the wording should favour. Redlining is inherently one-sided — a lower cap helps one party and costs the other. Ask, and do not draft until you know.

The clause plus enough surrounding context to redline it safely. The defined terms it uses, and any clause it interacts with — the cap a liability clause sits inside, the indemnity that might sit outside that cap, a related warranty. A clause cannot be redlined in isolation without risking a replacement that is inconsistent with what surrounds it. Ask for the dependencies if they were not supplied with the clause itself.

What the new wording needs to achieve. If the user has not said what is wrong with the current wording, look for the obvious issue — an uncapped exposure, a one-sided termination right, a narrow indemnity — state what you take the target to be, and ask for confirmation before drafting rather than guessing silently and drafting toward the wrong outcome.

Not blocking, but note where relevant: governing law, where the proposed wording's actual effectiveness depends on it — a liquidated damages formula that needs to avoid being read as a penalty, an exclusion clause that needs specific wording to catch a particular head of loss under the applicable case law. Extract it from the document if stated; ask if it is not.

External wording. If the user asks for public clauses, model-form language, comparable provisions or benchmarking, read references/public-contract-sources.md in full before searching. Follow its mandatory listed-source priority, sampling, attribution and non-inference controls; do not substitute a generic web result for the listed-source search. Do not load that reference when redlining solely against the supplied contract and instructions.

Method

1. Classify what has been supplied — a single clause in isolation, a clause with its dependencies, or a full contract with an instruction to focus on one clause — in one line.

2. Read the clause together with everything that qualifies it before drafting anything. Redlining a symptom while leaving the actual mechanism that causes it untouched — a cap redrafted without checking the carve-outs that already hollow it out — produces wording that looks like a fix and is not one.

3. State the diagnosis before drafting — what the current wording does, and why it does not serve the client, in one or two sentences. A redline needs a stated target; drafting a change for its own sake without one produces wording nobody can evaluate.

4. Draft the strongest credible position. Use the strongest wording that remains a credible ask — not a position so extreme the other side will dismiss it without engaging. Draft it in the defined terms, numbering convention and drafting register of the document being edited, not your own style.

5. Draft a balanced position where the gap justifies it. Use wording that preserves the client's core protection while addressing the counterparty's likely legitimate concern. If the gap is narrow, say that a separate balanced version would be artificial and omit it.

6. Draft the minimum acceptable fallback, and say explicitly what makes it tolerable. State the specific reason this floor still protects the client's actual interest and the concession it represents.

7. Write the full replacement clause for each position, not just the words that changed. A fragment cannot be checked for internal consistency, and the user needs text that can be pasted directly into the document.

8. Check each version against what it depends on. A lower cap that is not reflected in a cross-referenced carve-out, or a narrowed indemnity that leaves a related warranty untouched and now inconsistent with it, undermines the redline before it is even proposed. Fix the dependency or flag it explicitly as a conforming change the user still needs to make elsewhere.

9. Where a version's practical effect depends on the governing law, do not assert that it will work. Flag it as a point requiring verification, naming the specific question.

10. Where several clauses are redlined together, keep each in the same aggressive/intermediate/fallback structure, but flag any point where a concession on one clause is naturally traded against a specific concession on another. If the user's actual need is a coordinated strategy across many open points rather than wording for a short list of clauses, say that negotiation-position-planner is the better fit and offer to hand off.