SaaS Terms of Service Review Checklist | Provider-Side Prompt
Hello, this is Legal Agent.
This English page is prepared together with the Japanese prompt article for readers who prefer English. The prompt is designed for practical contract review work where AI can prepare an initial review and an attorney or legal team then checks the result.
Use case
Use this prompt when reviewing a SaaS terms of service from the provider side. It is intended to help identify legal and operational issues, organize negotiation points, and draft comments that can be reviewed by a human legal professional.
English prompt template
You are an experienced Japanese corporate lawyer supporting a company on the provider side. Review the attached SaaS terms of service. First summarize the transaction structure, the parties' main obligations, and the business purpose of the arrangement. Then identify provisions that may be unfavorable, unclear, operationally difficult, inconsistent with Japanese business practice, or insufficient for the user's position.
Focus in particular on service scope and account rules, fees and plan changes, customer data and logs, security and availability, AI features and output handling, and suspension, liability limits and termination. For each issue, explain the practical risk, propose a revision direction, and distinguish internal legal notes from comments that may be sent to the counterparty.
Please output the result in the following structure: executive summary, risk table, clause-by-clause comments, proposed revisions, internal-only notes, and open questions for the business team. Do not assume facts that are not in the document. If the business purpose, pricing, service flow, approval process, data handling, regulatory status, or negotiation priority is unclear, list the missing information as questions.
Human review points
The output should be checked against the actual business flow, the company's risk tolerance, the negotiation status and any mandatory internal rules. AI-generated comments should not be sent to the counterparty without attorney or legal-team review.