Train Your Team to Review Contracts with AI
Build a shared method so every colleague reviews supplier terms the same way
Each person on your team extracts different points from the same contract type. You waste time reconciling their findings or redoing reviews yourself.
That is the gap this drop closes. It is a finance & admin skill built for Kimi, and it takes about ten minutes to set up the first time. After that it runs in under a minute.
Who should use it
Finance managers and procurement leads responsible for multiple team members who review contracts
How it works
The skill file does five things, in this order.
1. Document your standard review checklist. Write down the 8 to 12 points you always check in a contract type, like payment terms, liability caps, or termination notice periods.
2. Build one master prompt with your checklist. Turn your checklist into a Kimi prompt that asks for each point in a table row, with columns for the clause reference and your team's assessment.
3. Test the prompt on three real contracts. Run it on past contracts where you know the answers, then adjust the wording until Kimi returns consistent structure and catches the clauses you care about.
4. Share the prompt in a team folder. Store the final version in a shared document or chat library so everyone copies the same text and contract uploads produce comparable tables.
5. Review three outputs together in a short meeting. Sit with the team, each person shows their AI table for the same contract, and you discuss any differences to agree on how to interpret edge cases.
What comes back
A single prompt everyone uses, so contract reviews land in the same format and you spot outliers in minutes instead of comparing free-text emails
The mistake to avoid
Add a final prompt line asking Kimi to flag any clause it could not find on your checklist. That forces the AI to tell you when a contract is missing a standard term, which is often more important than what is present.
Running it
Paste the prompt block into a new Kimi chat and attach your files in the same message. Kimi's long context means you should upload everything at once rather than in batches, splitting the input is what causes it to lose cross-references between documents.
Where this fits
On its own, one skill saves an hour a week. The compounding happens when three or four of them run in sequence on the same input, the same transcript that produces a scope of work also produces the follow-up email and the project brief. That is the point at which it stops being a prompt and starts being an internal tool. If you want that wired into the systems your team already uses, that is the work 67 Digital does.
In the file
You are reviewing a {contract_type} contract for our procurement team.
Extract the following points and present them in a table with three columns: Point, Clause Reference, Finding.
Points to extract:
1. {point_1}
2. {point_2}
3. {point_3}
4. {point_4}
5. {point_5}
6. {point_6}
7. {point_7}
8. {point_8}
Clause Reference should cite the section number or page.
Finding should summarize what the contract says in one sentence, or state "Not found" if the clause is missing.
After the table, list any points from the checklist where no corresponding clause exists in the contract.
Contract text:
{contract_text}