Overview

What you're building

A review workspace loaded with your criteria. You upload a document, and it returns a structured findings table using the same checklist each time, with each finding tied to a quoted passage so you can verify it quickly.

Why this setup

Consistency is the point of a review. A standing checklist in the workspace means item 7 gets checked on the fortieth document just like the first. Requiring quotes for every finding makes the AI's output checkable rather than something you have to trust.

The workflow architecture

• AI workspace

  Holds your instructions and reference files so you never re-explain.

• Reusable instructions

  Review method and output format.

• Reference document

  Your criteria list or style guide.

• Your review

  You verify each flagged item against the quote.

You haven't picked a tool yet, so this kit is platform-neutral. Both Claude and ChatGPT support this setup.

Optional: a stable checklist used across many chats can be packaged as a Claude Skill if your plan supports Skills. The Project is sufficient for most people.

What to prepare

• □Your review criteria written as a numbered list (or your existing style guide/policy).
• □Two past documents: one that passed and one with known problems, for testing.
• □What your output should look like (comments, a table, a pass/fail summary).

Build it once

1. 1Create a dedicated workspace named "Recurring Document Review Assistant" in the AI tool you choose. Both Claude and ChatGPT call this a "Project". Claude offers Projects on all plans; ChatGPT availability depends on your plan.
2. 2Paste the main instructions block from this kit into the workspace's instructions.
3. 3Upload the reference files listed below, and start every future conversation from inside this workspace.
4. 4Turn your criteria into the Review Criteria block, one checkable item per line.
5. 5Paste the Project Instructions into the workspace and upload the criteria as a reference file.
6. 6Run the known-problem document and confirm it catches what you already know is wrong.
7. 7Run the passing document and note any false alarms; tighten the wording of those criteria.

Copy-ready materials

Edit anything in [BRACKETS]. Changes are kept when you save the kit.

You review [DOCUMENT TYPE, e.g. vendor contracts] against the criteria in the reference file "REVIEW CRITERIA".

FOR EACH DOCUMENT
1. Check every criterion, in order. Do not skip any.
2. Output a table: # | Criterion | Status (Pass / Issue / Not found) | Exact quote | Suggested fix
3. Every "Issue" must include a direct quote from the document. If you can't quote it, mark "Not found".
4. End with: overall summary (3 sentences max) and the top 3 items for me to look at first.

RULES
- Do not rewrite the document unless I ask.
- Do not give legal or regulatory conclusions; flag items for my judgment.
- If the document is a different type than expected, say so before reviewing.

REVIEW CRITERIA – [DOCUMENT TYPE]   v[1] [DATE]

1. [e.g. Term length is stated and is 12 months or less]
2. [e.g. Auto-renewal clause present? Flag notice period]
3. [e.g. Payment terms are net 30 or longer]
4. [e.g. Liability is capped]
5. [e.g. Our standard confidentiality language is included]
6. [e.g. Names, dates, and amounts are consistent throughout]
7. [Style: e.g. Uses sentence-case headings]
8. [Anything that always needs a human decision]

How Claude can help execute this

How to test it

1. 1Run the known-problem document.
2. 2Run the known-good document.

Success looks like

• ✓ All known problems are flagged with correct quotes.
• ✓ No more than one or two false alarms on the good document.

How to use it next time

1. Open the workspace and upload the new document.
2. Say: 'Review this. Context: [anything unusual].'
3. Check each Issue against its quote before acting on it.
4. When you find a missed issue, add it to the criteria file and re-upload (bump the version).

Troubleshooting

Findings without quotes, or quotes that don't exist.

Search the document for the quote. If missing, reinforce: 'A finding without a verbatim quote is not allowed.'

It skips criteria on long documents.

Ask it to review in sections ('criteria 1–4 first'), or split the file.

Too many minor flags.

Add a severity column and ask for 'Issues of severity Medium or higher only' in the summary.

Limitations, privacy & safety

• · This is a first-pass screen, not professional legal, compliance, or editorial sign-off.
• · Scanned PDFs may not be read accurately; use text-based files when possible.
• · Very long documents may exceed what the tool reads at once.

Privacy & safety

• · Contracts and drafts are often confidential. Confirm your organization permits uploading them.
• · Redact personal data (names, addresses, ID numbers) when it isn't needed for the review.