You get an NDA in your inbox and the clock starts. The other side wants diligence moving, your team wants to share data, and no one wants to own a bad clause. So you skim, mark a few obvious edits, and hope nothing subtle bites later. The friction is not reading the document. It is turning legal language into deal risk for your role. A broker, buyer, lender, and asset manager do not carry the same exposure, yet most reviews treat them alike. Due Diligence ~5 min to run Review a Confidentiality Agreement for Deal Risks Vic prompt Use Vic to review this confidentiality agreement for my role as the buyer in a 120,000 sf office acquisition. Purpose A human analyst needs roughly 50 minutes for the same review. This version completes the work in about 5 minutes and gives clear language to negotiate or accept the document. Inputs Confidentiality Agreement Required Your Role Required Additional Context Optional Output Format Optional Outputs A table of prioritized issues with provision cites and recommended fixes, a list of missing provisions, and a single-line sign-or-redline recommendation. Time saved Turns roughly 50 minutes of manual review into about 5 minutes. How it works Run it with a simple instruction: "Use Vic to review this confidentiality agreement for my role as the buyer in a 120,000 sf office acquisition." Then attach the NDA and state your role. Add context if something about the deal is unusual, but you do not need to. The output fits how CRE teams decide. You get a prioritized table of issues labeled High, Medium, or Low. Each row cites the exact provision, states the risk in plain terms, explains the business problem for your role, and suggests a fix you can send back. This is not a generic summary. It is a set of edits tied to the document in front of you. The task also flags missing provisions. That matters more than people admit. Many NDAs say nothing about items that drive real exposure, and silence is not neutral. If something should be there for your role, it calls it out so you can add it instead of arguing over wording that will not change the outcome. You end with a one line conclusion: sign as is or redline. That line forces a decision. It comes with a standard disclaimer so you can share the output internally or with counsel without confusion about what it is. The role lens is the difference. A buyer cares about use restrictions and residual knowledge in a different way than a broker. A lender will focus on sharing within credit and portfolio teams. An asset manager may need broader internal use and vendor access. The task reads the same clause through that lens and explains the impact on your workflow, not just the wording. The prioritization saves time. In a typical review, you spend most of your time sorting signal from noise. Here, the High items surface first with clear fixes. Medium items give you room to negotiate. Low items are there if you want to clean them up, but they do not block the deal. This matches how people negotiate NDAs under time pressure. The fixes are usable. Short, direct language you can paste into a redline or an email. If the right move is to accept a clause, it says so and explains why. If a clause creates a business problem, it tells you what to change. Speed is the other point. A human analyst needs about 50 minutes for a careful pass. This runs in about five minutes and returns something you can act on. The gain is not just time. It is consistency. Every NDA gets the same level of scrutiny, even when you are juggling multiple deals. This does not replace counsel. It gives you a clean first position and a shared language to discuss risk. That alone cuts cycles. You move from vague concerns to specific edits with reasons tied to your role in the transaction. If you are sending or receiving NDAs every week, this kind of task compounds. Fewer back and forth emails, fewer surprises after data is shared, and a clear record of why you signed or pushed back.