Run your first AI search review.
A first organised look at how AI tools like ChatGPT answer your buyers. Choose a scope, audit the pages that should answer, log what the AI tools said, do one piece of work, then ask again to find out what changed.
| A | B | |
|---|---|---|
| 4 | Scope | This review |
| 5 | Product or service | ClauseMinds Contract AI |
| 6 | Website | clauseminds.com |
| 7 | Market | UK, Germany and US · English |
| 8 | Competitors to watch | Clausewell, Redlinery |
| 9 | AI tools you’ll ask | ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews |
| 10 | Settings, the same every round | Signed out · UK · default mode |
| 11 | How often you’ll repeat it | Every month, on the same questions |
| 12 | Who runs the review | Priya |
| 13 | ||
| 14 | ||
| 15 | ||
| 16 | ||
| 17 | ||
| 18 |
| A | B | C | D | E | F | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | ID | Situation | The question, as a buyer would type it | Type | Branded? | Page that should answer it |
| 5 | Q1 | S1 | What contract review tools work inside Microsoft Word? | Discovery | Unbranded | clauseminds.com/integrations/word |
| 6 | Q2 | S1 | Which AI contract review tool suits a 40-person legal team? | Fit | Unbranded | clauseminds.com/legal-teams |
| 7 | Q3 | S1 | ClauseMinds vs Clausewell for supplier contracts | Comparison | Branded | |
| 8 | Q4 | S1 | Is ClauseMinds accurate enough for legal review? | Objection | Branded | clauseminds.com/security |
| 9 | Q5 | S2 | How can procurement track contract renewals without a legal team? | Discovery | Unbranded | clauseminds.com/obligations |
| 10 | Q6 | S2 | Which contract tools track obligations across hundreds of contracts? | Fit | Unbranded | clauseminds.com/obligations |
| 11 | Q7 | S2 | Contract software or a spreadsheet for tracking renewals? | Comparison | Unbranded | |
| 12 | Q8 | S2 | Does ClauseMinds keep our contracts after a review? | Objection | Branded | clauseminds.com/security |
| 13 | Q9 | S3 | Cheapest way to check a contract before signing | Discovery | Unbranded | clauseminds.com/pricing |
| 14 | Q10 | S3 | AI contract review for a startup under $100 a month | Fit | Unbranded | clauseminds.com/pricing |
| 15 | Q11 | S3 | ClauseMinds or Redlinery for a small startup? | Comparison | Branded | |
| 16 | Q12 | S3 | Can I trust AI to review a contract without a lawyer? | Objection | Unbranded | clauseminds.com/blog/ai-review-limits |
| 17 | ||||||
| 18 |
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Page | Questions | Checks passed (of 6) | Says what, who and the job | Says who it doesn’t suit | Answers its questions | Key facts as text | Dated and sourced | Readable without scripts | Biggest gap | Status |
| 5 | clauseminds.com/integrations/word | Q1 | 4 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Partly | Yes | Never says who it doesn’t suit | Not started |
| 6 | clauseminds.com/legal-teams | Q2 | 1 | Partly | No | Partly | No | No | Yes | Slogans instead of facts: no team size, seats or price | In progress |
| 7 | clauseminds.com/security | Q4, Q8 | 4 | Yes | No | Partly | Yes | Yes | Yes | Accuracy is covered only in an old blog post | Not started |
| 8 | clauseminds.com/obligations | Q5, Q6 | 2 | Partly | No | Partly | Yes | No | Yes | Written for lawyers, not for procurement | Not started |
| 9 | clauseminds.com/pricing | Q9, Q10 | 6 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | None now. The startup plan and single checks were added on 22 Sep | Shipped |
| 10 | clauseminds.com/blog/ai-review-limits | Q12 | 2 | No | No | Partly | Yes | No | Yes | The answer sits below a long introduction | Not started |
| 11 | |||||||||||
| 12 | |||||||||||
| 13 | |||||||||||
| 14 | |||||||||||
| 15 | |||||||||||
| 16 | |||||||||||
| 17 | |||||||||||
| 18 |
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Round | Date | Question ID | Question | AI tool | Our brand | Cited? | What the answer said |
| 5 | 1 | 8 Sep 2026 | Q1 | What contract review tools work inside Microsoft Word? | ChatGPT | Recommended | Yes | ClauseMinds runs as a Word add-in. Reviewers stay in the document they already use. |
| 6 | 1 | 8 Sep 2026 | Q1 | What contract review tools work inside Microsoft Word? | Perplexity | Mentioned | Yes | Options include Clausewell, Redlinery and ClauseMinds. |
| 7 | 1 | 8 Sep 2026 | Q2 | Which AI contract review tool suits a 40-person legal team? | ChatGPT | Absent | No | For a legal team of that size, Clausewell and Redlinery are common choices. |
| 8 | 1 | 8 Sep 2026 | Q2 | Which AI contract review tool suits a 40-person legal team? | Gemini | Absent | No | Clausewell is the usual pick for legal teams of that size. |
| 9 | 1 | 8 Sep 2026 | Q3 | ClauseMinds vs Clausewell for supplier contracts | ChatGPT | Mentioned | No | Clausewell says it handles larger clause libraries than ClauseMinds. |
| 10 | 1 | 8 Sep 2026 | Q3 | ClauseMinds vs Clausewell for supplier contracts | Claude | Mentioned | No | Both review supplier contracts; the main difference is how each handles clause libraries. |
| 11 | 1 | 8 Sep 2026 | Q4 | Is ClauseMinds accurate enough for legal review? | Google AI Overviews | Mentioned | No | Some users say ClauseMinds needs a human check on unusual clauses. |
| 12 | 1 | 8 Sep 2026 | Q5 | How can procurement track contract renewals without a legal team? | ChatGPT | Absent | No | A shared calendar works for a few contracts; a tool such as Redlinery can flag renewals. |
| 13 | 1 | 8 Sep 2026 | Q5 | How can procurement track contract renewals without a legal team? | Perplexity | Absent | No | Redlinery and a renewal calendar are the two options most teams start with. |
| 14 | 1 | 8 Sep 2026 | Q6 | Which contract tools track obligations across hundreds of contracts? | Gemini | Recommended | Yes | ClauseMinds tracks obligations and renewal dates across a large contract portfolio. |
| 15 | 1 | 8 Sep 2026 | Q7 | Contract software or a spreadsheet for tracking renewals? | ChatGPT | Absent | No | A spreadsheet works for a handful of contracts; past that, renewal dates get missed. |
| 16 | 1 | 8 Sep 2026 | Q8 | Does ClauseMinds keep our contracts after a review? | Claude | Mentioned | Yes | ClauseMinds retains contracts for 30 days. |
| 17 | 1 | 8 Sep 2026 | Q9 | Cheapest way to check a contract before signing | Google AI Overviews | Absent | No | Free templates and a lawyer for anything unusual; Redlinery offers a single-document check. |
| 18 | 1 | 8 Sep 2026 | Q10 | AI contract review for a startup under $100 a month | ChatGPT | Absent | No | Redlinery has a plan for small teams; most tools price per seat. |
| 19 | 1 | 8 Sep 2026 | Q11 | ClauseMinds or Redlinery for a small startup? | Perplexity | Mentioned | No | Redlinery positions itself as the simpler choice for small teams. |
| 20 | 1 | 8 Sep 2026 | Q12 | Can I trust AI to review a contract without a lawyer? | Claude | Absent | No | AI review catches common issues, but a lawyer should check anything unusual. |
| 21 | 2 | 6 Oct 2026 | Q1 | What contract review tools work inside Microsoft Word? | ChatGPT | Recommended | Yes | ClauseMinds runs as a Word add-in. Reviewers stay in the document they already use. |
| 22 | 2 | 6 Oct 2026 | Q1 | What contract review tools work inside Microsoft Word? | Perplexity | Mentioned | Yes | Options include Clausewell, Redlinery and ClauseMinds. |
| 23 | 2 | 6 Oct 2026 | Q2 | Which AI contract review tool suits a 40-person legal team? | ChatGPT | Absent | No | For a legal team of that size, Clausewell and Redlinery are common choices. |
| 24 | 2 | 6 Oct 2026 | Q2 | Which AI contract review tool suits a 40-person legal team? | Gemini | Mentioned | No | ClauseMinds is another option, though its team pricing is not published. |
| 25 | 2 | 6 Oct 2026 | Q3 | ClauseMinds vs Clausewell for supplier contracts | ChatGPT | Mentioned | No | Clausewell says it handles larger clause libraries than ClauseMinds. |
| 26 | 2 | 6 Oct 2026 | Q3 | ClauseMinds vs Clausewell for supplier contracts | Claude | Mentioned | No | Both review supplier contracts; the main difference is how each handles clause libraries. |
| 27 | 2 | 6 Oct 2026 | Q4 | Is ClauseMinds accurate enough for legal review? | Google AI Overviews | Mentioned | No | Some users say ClauseMinds needs a human check on unusual clauses. |
| 28 | 2 | 6 Oct 2026 | Q5 | How can procurement track contract renewals without a legal team? | ChatGPT | Absent | No | A shared calendar works for a few contracts; a tool such as Redlinery can flag renewals. |
| 29 | 2 | 6 Oct 2026 | Q5 | How can procurement track contract renewals without a legal team? | Perplexity | Absent | No | Redlinery and a renewal calendar are the two options most teams start with. |
| 30 | 2 | 6 Oct 2026 | Q6 | Which contract tools track obligations across hundreds of contracts? | Gemini | Recommended | Yes | ClauseMinds tracks obligations and renewal dates across a large contract portfolio. |
| 31 | 2 | 6 Oct 2026 | Q7 | Contract software or a spreadsheet for tracking renewals? | ChatGPT | Absent | No | A spreadsheet works for a handful of contracts; past that, renewal dates get missed. |
| 32 | 2 | 6 Oct 2026 | Q8 | Does ClauseMinds keep our contracts after a review? | Claude | Mentioned | Yes | ClauseMinds retains contracts for 30 days. |
| 33 | 2 | 6 Oct 2026 | Q9 | Cheapest way to check a contract before signing | Google AI Overviews | Absent | No | Free templates and a lawyer for anything unusual; Redlinery offers a single-document check. |
| 34 | 2 | 6 Oct 2026 | Q10 | AI contract review for a startup under $100 a month | ChatGPT | Mentioned | Yes | ClauseMinds starts at $49 per seat. |
| 35 | 2 | 6 Oct 2026 | Q11 | ClauseMinds or Redlinery for a small startup? | Perplexity | Mentioned | No | Redlinery positions itself as the simpler choice for small teams. |
| 36 | 2 | 6 Oct 2026 | Q12 | Can I trust AI to review a contract without a lawyer? | Claude | Absent | No | AI review catches common issues, but a lawyer should check anything unusual. |
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | ID | The work | Owner | Status | Shipped on | Check in round | What that round showed | Next decision |
| 5 | W1 | Say what the startup plan costs and that single contracts can be checked | Priya | Shipped | 22 Sep 2026 | 2 | Mixed | Q10 now names ClauseMinds and cites the pricing page. Q9 is still absent. Keep the change; ask Q9 again in round 3 before doing more. |
| 6 | W2 | Rewrite the legal teams page around team size, seats and price | Priya | In progress | 3 | Inconclusive | Gemini named ClauseMinds for Q2 in round 2 with nothing shipped. Treat it as noise until it holds, and finish the rewrite. | |
| 7 | W3 | Build a comparison page: ClauseMinds and Clausewell | Sam | Not started | Not checked yet | Next, once the legal teams page ships. | ||
| 8 | ||||||||
| 9 | ||||||||
| 10 | ||||||||
| 11 | ||||||||
| 12 | ||||||||
| 13 | ||||||||
| 14 | ||||||||
| 15 | ||||||||
| 16 | ||||||||
| 17 | ||||||||
| 18 |
- Q2 · GeminiAbsent Mentioned, nothing shippedInconclusive
- Q10 · ChatGPTAbsent Mentioned, after W1 shippedMoved
What you get in the kit.
Every tab has its columns, a line on what to write and room for your own review. The worked example sits on its own tab, apart from your rows.
4 ID The question, as a buyer would type it Page that should answer it 5 Q1 What contract review tools work inside Microsoft Word? clauseminds.com/integrations/word 6 Q2 Which AI contract review tool suits a 40-person legal team? clauseminds.com/legal-teams 7 Q3 ClauseMinds vs Clausewell for supplier contracts 8 Q4 Is ClauseMinds accurate enough for legal review? clauseminds.com/security 9 Q5 How can procurement track contract renewals without a legal team? clauseminds.com/obligations A question list
The questions a buyer would ask, each tied to a buying situation and to the page that should answer it.
4 Page Passed Says what, who and the job Says who it doesn’t suit Answers its questions 5 /integrations/word 4 Yes No Yes 6 /legal-teams 1 Partly No Partly 7 /security 4 Yes No Partly 8 /obligations 2 Partly No Partly 9 /pricing 6 Yes Yes Yes 10 /blog/ai-review-limits 2 No No Partly A page audit with six checks
Does each page say what it is, who it suits and who it doesn’t, and answer its questions in text a machine can read?
4 The work Status What that round showed 5 Say what the startup plan costs and that single contracts can be checked Shipped Mixed 6 Rewrite the legal teams page around team size, seats and price In progress Inconclusive 7 Build a comparison page: ClauseMinds and Clausewell Not started Not checked yet A work log
Each piece of work, the finding behind it, when it shipped and what the next round showed.
4 Round Question AI tool Our brand What the answer said 5 1 What contract review tools work inside Microsoft Word? ChatGPT Recommended ClauseMinds runs as a Word add-in. Reviewers stay in the document they already use. 6 1 What contract review tools work inside Microsoft Word? Perplexity Mentioned Options include Clausewell, Redlinery and ClauseMinds. 7 1 Which AI contract review tool suits a 40-person legal team? ChatGPT Absent For a legal team of that size, Clausewell and Redlinery are common choices. 8 1 Which AI contract review tool suits a 40-person legal team? Gemini Absent Clausewell is the usual pick for legal teams of that size. 9 1 ClauseMinds vs Clausewell for supplier contracts ChatGPT Mentioned Clausewell says it handles larger clause libraries than ClauseMinds. 10 1 ClauseMinds vs Clausewell for supplier contracts Claude Mentioned Both review supplier contracts; the main difference is how each handles clause libraries. 11 1 Is ClauseMinds accurate enough for legal review? Google AI Overviews Mentioned Some users say ClauseMinds needs a human check on unusual clauses. 12 1 How can procurement track contract renewals without a legal team? ChatGPT Absent A shared calendar works for a few contracts; a tool such as Redlinery can flag renewals. 13 1 How can procurement track contract renewals without a legal team? Perplexity Absent Redlinery and a renewal calendar are the two options most teams start with. 14 1 Which contract tools track obligations across hundreds of contracts? Gemini Recommended ClauseMinds tracks obligations and renewal dates across a large contract portfolio. 15 1 Contract software or a spreadsheet for tracking renewals? ChatGPT Absent A spreadsheet works for a handful of contracts; past that, renewal dates get missed. An answer log kept in rounds, and results that count themselves
What each AI tool said, numbered by round. The results tab puts every round side by side, by outcome and by AI tool.
The review, step by step.
Everything the kit does, you can do in an ordinary sheet. Here is how.
Choose a scope
One product, a few buying situations, the competitors a buyer would compare you with and the AI tools you’ll ask. Decide the settings now (signed in or out, location, mode) and keep them for every round.
The scopeClauseMinds Contract AI, three buying situations, two competitors, five AI tools, signed out in the UK.
Write the questions
The sentences a buyer would type, each with the constraint that changes their choice, and the page that should answer it. Twelve to twenty is enough for a first review. The buyer-question workbook goes deeper on this step.
A fit questionAI contract review for a startup under $100 a month.
Audit the pages before you ask
Six checks on every page a question points at. Does it say what it is and who it’s for? Who it doesn’t suit? Does it answer its questions, with the key facts written as text, dated and sourced, readable without scripts? Keep this apart from what AI tools say: a page can pass every check and still be left out.
One pageThe legal teams page passes 1 of 6 checks. Slogans, and no team size, seats or price.
Ask, and log what came back
Every question, in every AI tool, with the same settings. One row per answer: recommended, mentioned or absent, whether it cited your page and who else it named. Number the round and date it.
Round 1, 8 SeptemberNamed in 8 of 16 answers, recommended in 2. Absent from both startup pricing questions.
Pick one piece of work
Choose the finding that most stops a buyer choosing you and turn it into one task with an owner. Write down the questions it should move and the round that should show it.
The workSay what the startup plan costs on the pricing page. Owner: Priya. Shipped 22 September.
Ask again, then decide
The same questions, the same settings, a round later. Put the rounds side by side and be strict about credit, because an answer can move with nothing shipped. Write down what moved, what didn’t and what you can’t tell yet.
Round 2, 6 OctoberQ10 now names ClauseMinds and cites the pricing page. Q2 moved too, with nothing shipped: inconclusive until it holds.
One number can’t tell you what worked.
A single reading says where you stand today. Two readings and a record of the work in between start to say what helped.
“We’re named in 10 of 16 answers.”
True on one day, with one set of settings. It can’t say whether anything you did made a difference.
“Named in 8 of 16 on 8 September and 10 of 16 on 6 October. One change follows the pricing fix; one moved with nothing shipped.”
Now the team knows which change follows its work, and which to leave alone until it holds.
Get the kit.
The method is on this page. The kit is the part you work in: eight tabs for the question list, the page audit, the answer log kept in rounds, and the work log.
One email with your copy, then a note only if the kit changes. One-click unsubscribe on every email. How we use your address.
Keep going.
Questions, answered.
Something else on your mind? Contact us.
For the file, yes. Everything on this page is free to read without one: every part, with the worked example. Your address gets you the kit here straight away and a copy in your inbox, and we write again only if it changes.
The workbook goes deep on one step: building a question set from real buying situations. The starter kit runs a whole first review once: a shorter question list, a page audit, an answer log kept in rounds, a work log and the results. Start with the workbook if your questions aren’t settled yet.
Yes. It’s an Excel file. Upload it to Google Drive and open it with Google Sheets, or open it in Numbers. The dropdowns and counts work in all three. There’s also a PDF with the method, the six checks and the example, to read or pass around.
No. The answers in the worked example were written to show the method, not measured. Your own tabs start empty.
Monthly is enough to start. Answers vary from day to day. One change between two rounds is a reading, not proof. Keep the questions and settings the same, and credit a piece of work when the change follows it and holds.
It checks a public page’s readiness to be found, understood and cited. Ongoing tracking and work belong in the platform.
When the log outgrows a spreadsheet.
Praised tracks when you’re recommended and who is chosen instead. Each shipped piece keeps the questions it targets, and later readings settle whether the work moved them.