Compare Two Contract Drafts and Draft Your Response
When opposing counsel sends back a redline, surface what truly changed, assess the risk, and draft your response — in one sitting.
When to use this
A counterparty returns a marked-up agreement and calls the edits 'minor.' The real work is separating the consequential changes (a quietly narrowed indemnity, a flipped 'shall' to 'may') from the cosmetic ones, then responding from a position of clarity. This workflow does the triage and the first-draft response.
A returned redline is where deals quietly shift. A clean version-compare shows you where words moved, but not which moves matter — that a softened indemnity just put real risk on your client, or that a definition tweak changed an obligation. Catching the consequential edits is the whole game.
Claude is effective at this triage: paste both versions, tell it whose side you're on, and it walks the changes clause by clause — material, clarifying, or cosmetic — with a risk note on anything that alters rights, then drafts your response. You stay the decision-maker; Claude builds the map and the first draft.
Run the steps in one conversation so the response is grounded in the same change analysis. Verify every flagged change against the actual documents before you send anything.
The Workflow
Get a prioritized change log
Give Claude both versions and your client's role. Ask it to identify every change and rate its significance.
PromptI represent the [BUYER / SELLER / TENANT / etc.] in this deal. Below are two versions of the agreement: our last draft, and the redline opposing counsel just returned. Compare them clause by clause. For each change, give: - what was removed and what was added - significance: MATERIAL, CLARIFYING, or COSMETIC - for material changes, the practical risk to my client VERSION A (ours): [PASTE] VERSION B (their redline): [PASTE]
What you get: A change log that separates the few edits that move risk from the noise.
Confirm the priorities
Have Claude surface the short list worth negotiating and what's safe to accept.
PromptSummarize: which 3–5 changes should I push back on hardest and why, and which changes are fine to accept as-is? Flag any change that looks cosmetic but actually carries legal weight (for example, 'shall' becoming 'may').
What you get: A negotiation-ready priority list you can sanity-check against your strategy.
Draft the response
Ask Claude to draft your reply to opposing counsel, accepting some changes and countering others with reasons.
PromptDraft a professional email to opposing counsel responding to the redline: accept the changes we're fine with, and counter the material ones with a brief, businesslike rationale (and a proposed compromise where useful). Firm but constructive in tone.
What you get: A first-draft response you can refine to your voice.
Verify against the documents
Check each flagged change against the actual text, confirm the risk calls fit the deal, and finalize. Claude can miss a subtle change or misjudge context — the review is yours.
Example Output
Illustrative example — names, facts, and figures are fictional.
CHANGE LOG (excerpt) — client: Customer Section 7.2 — Limitation of Liability [MATERIAL] Was: cap = 2x fees paid in prior 12 months Now: cap = fees paid in prior 3 months Risk: sharply lowers what we could recover on a serious breach. Push back toward 12 months. Section 3.1 — Definitions [CLARIFYING] "Business Day" now excludes federal holidays. Acceptable. Watch: Section 9.1 indemnity changed "shall indemnify" → "may indemnify" — looks small, guts the obligation. Treat as MATERIAL.
Tips
- •Always state which side you represent — the same change is favorable or harmful depending on your client.
- •Paste the full documents, including exhibits, so a buried change isn't missed.
- •Ask Claude to specifically hunt for changes that look cosmetic but shift meaning — that's where redlines hide their teeth.
A note on confidentiality
Draft agreements contain confidential deal terms. Use a Claude Team or Enterprise plan and keep sensitive client identifiers out of consumer tiers without appropriate protections.
Prompts used in this workflow
Get New Workflows Like This Every Week
Join the free Claude for Lawyers newsletter — practical workflows, prompts, and guides for everyday practice.