# Spellbook

> Spellbook supports legal contract work with AI questions, source references, Microsoft Word review suggestions, and reusable contract-review instructions.

Website: https://spellbook.com/

Spellbook is an option for legal teams organizing contract questions and reviewing proposed changes within their document workflow. Evaluate it with a bounded evidence task that the responsible reviewer can inspect against the agreement.

Ask supports questions about contract details with source references in Microsoft Word. [Spellbook Ask](https://spellbook.com/features/ask).

Review offers redline and comment suggestions, reusable review instructions or playbooks, and user selection of applied changes. [Spellbook Review](https://spellbook.com/features/review).

Spellbook is categorized here as paid, with custom team-license pricing and a trial. Confirm the current arrangement with the vendor. [Spellbook pricing](https://spellbook.com/pricing).

## Evaluate clause fidelity

**Illustrative fictional fixture:** a made-up service agreement requires a usage file within five business days after receipt of an approved account list. It references a missing Schedule B. A draft addendum proposes different timing without evidence of acceptance. This is a proposed evaluation exercise; no Spellbook trial or product result is reported.

Ask for the party, action, timing trigger, and supporting clause reference. Have the qualified reviewer open that reference and compare the whole claim with the passage. Check that “within,” the approved-list trigger, and the business-day rule survived the answer.

Then ask what the packet establishes about supported accounts and the proposed addendum. The useful answer keeps the missing schedule and uncertain document status visible. An answer that confidently supplies accounts or overwrites the original deadline needs correction even if its prose sounds reasonable.

Record each proposed answer, cited passage, reviewer finding, and repair. When the review workflow suggests a change, inspect the change within the source document and record who approved it. A generated comment or redline is a proposal to review, not evidence that a term was accepted.

Add a review pass that starts from the original clause rather than the extracted answer. Ask what the row omitted, including exceptions and referenced documents. This reverse check can expose a relevant passage that a polished answer never mentioned.

Use the exercise to see whether the team can trace a proposed extraction and preserve unresolved questions in its working record. Do not treat success on the invented packet as a finding about jurisdiction-specific legal advice or the correctness of other agreements.

## Fit the evidence packet to the review process

The [vendor-contract packet guide](/guides/workflow/ai-vendor-contract-review-packet) provides an inventory, obligation register, and questions sheet. [Contract abstraction](/glossary/contract-abstraction) explains the extraction task that precedes the reviewer's interpretation. The [document-research guide](/guides/workflow/ai-document-research-with-citations) supplies the broader citation discipline.

For supplied local material, [contract-obligation-register](/skills/docs/contract-obligation-register) drafts structured rows. The [contract obligation reviewer](/agents/product/contract-obligation-reviewer) checks omitted conditions and evidence gaps. [check-obligation-dates](/commands/docs/check-obligation-dates) checks the narrow date projection using explicit assumptions. These optional Claude Code files do not connect to Spellbook, accept terms, or send notices.

Confirm the chosen product's setup, access, and fit for the legal team's document process. Keep a qualified reviewer responsible for interpreting the agreement and authorizing commitments; the practical evaluation is whether the workflow preserves the evidence they need.

---

_Source: https://agentscamp.com/tools/spellbook — Tool on AgentsCamp._