An AI NDA review agent reads a mutual or one-way NDA and identifies who is bound, what counts as confidential, how long the duty lasts and what the exceptions are.
The counterparty's draft arrives from the requester's email.
The agent extracts scope, term, exclusions and governing law.
Each term is compared with legal's stated NDA position.
Differences are listed with quoted clauses and suggested wording.
The reviewer accepts, amends or rejects each flagged term.
The final version and effective date are logged against the deal.
It compares each term with your stated position and marks deviations as acceptable, needs discussion or blocker, with the clause text beside each mark.
It drafts a short note and suggested wording for the reviewer, who decides what goes back to the counterparty.
NDAs arrive constantly, from every team, usually with a deadline attached. Each one is short, which tempts people to skim it, yet a single odd definition can bind you for years.
Many NDAs are routine, so reviewers lose time on documents that need no change while the odd one slips through.
The counterparty's own form may be one-way, broad in scope or silent on return of materials.
Someone shares a deck before the NDA is in place because the review queue is slow.
Residuals language, a long survival period or an unusual venue sit in a few words.
Without notes, the next review of the same vendor starts from scratch.
Confirm it is an NDA and whether it is mutual or one-way, and match it to the vendor or deal it belongs to.
Pull the definition of confidential information, exclusions, permitted use, term, survival, return or destruction duties, and governing law.
Check each term against the position your legal team has set, and score each as aligned, different or outside range.
Write a plain summary of the differences with the clause text and the position it was compared with.
Record the reviewer's decision, the final version and the effective date so the NDA can be found later.
Bring a small sample and watch Flo work through it.
| Aspect | By hand | With the agent |
|---|---|---|
| Triage effort | Legal reads every NDA in full, including routine ones. | Routine NDAs arrive pre-compared; legal reads flagged terms first. |
| Consistency | Each reviewer applies the position from memory. | Every NDA is checked against the same written position. |
| Evidence | Reasons for acceptance sit in email threads. | Each mark keeps the clause text and the position used. |
| Delay | Requesters wait for a lawyer to find time. | Requesters see status and gaps while the draft waits. |
| Findability | Signed NDAs are hard to locate when a deal restarts. | Version, parties and effective date are logged for lookup. |
| If | Then | Who decides |
|---|---|---|
| the NDA is one-way and the position expects mutual | flag the direction and quote the clause | Legal reviewer |
| the definition of confidential information has no exclusions | mark as needs discussion and draft an exclusion | Legal reviewer |
| the confidentiality period runs past your usual range | flag it and suggest alternative wording | Legal reviewer |
| governing law differs from the stated preference | mark as different and note the stated preference | Legal reviewer |
| the NDA contains non-solicit or non-compete wording | mark as blocker, since it is outside an NDA's normal scope | Legal reviewer |
| the counterparty is already under a master agreement with confidentiality terms | note the overlap and ask whether a separate NDA is needed | Requester and legal |
A clause lets the other side use remembered information. The agent flags it every time; legal decides if the risk fits the data being shared.
An old NDA is found with a missing signature page. The agent reports the gap and legal decides whether to re-paper it.
Someone signs a vendor form before review. The agent can only review after the fact; legal decides on remediation.
The text layer is poor and terms are unclear. The agent marks low-confidence fields for a person to read directly.
Talk it through with the team. We will map it to your steps and show where a person stays in control.
Legal records what it accepts on term, scope and law in plain wording. Without it the agent has nothing to compare against.
Run it alongside normal review on one team's incoming drafts and compare notes.
Extend to your own paper once reviewers trust the marks.
Legal samples unflagged NDAs on a schedule to confirm the position still fits.
This shows how many NDAs match your position on arrival. A low rate points to a weak standard form or to counterparties who push their own paper.
Quick answers to what people ask most about NDA review.
Book a demoIt reads the NDA, extracts the confidentiality terms, compares them with your position and prepares notes and suggested wording. A person reviews the result and decides what to send back.
No. It speeds up the first read and highlights differences. Your legal team still decides what is acceptable and handles negotiation.
Yes, it reads any NDA text it is given. Because wording varies, it quotes each clause so the reviewer can check the interpretation.
A clear position on term, definition of confidential information, exclusions, governing law and return duties. Without one, the agent has nothing to compare against.
A data protection clause sets out how a supplier may handle personal or sensitive data on your behalf, covering purpose, security, sub-processors, breach notice, transfers and deletion.
→MSA review is the examination of a master services agreement, the framework contract that governs every later order or statement of work with a supplier.
→A service level agreement clause sets measurable commitments for a service, such as availability or response times, and the remedy if the supplier misses them.
→SOW review is the check of a statement of work, the document that defines the scope, deliverables, schedule and fees for a specific piece of services work.
→Bring a small sample of real items. We will show what Flo handles on its own and where it hands over to your team.
