Back to Ruflo

ADR-034: Legal Contract Analysis Plugin

v3/implementation/adrs/ADR-034-legal-contract-plugin.md

3.6.3016.6 KB
Original Source

ADR-034: Legal Contract Analysis Plugin

Status: Proposed Date: 2026-01-24 Category: Practical Vertical Application Author: Plugin Architecture Team Version: 1.0.0 Deciders: Plugin Architecture Team, Legal Technology Experts Supersedes: None

Context

Legal professionals spend significant time reviewing contracts, identifying risks, and ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements. Manual review is error-prone and expensive. AI-powered contract analysis can dramatically reduce review time while improving accuracy, but requires specialized understanding of legal document structure, clause semantics, and jurisdictional variations.

Decision

Create a Legal Contract Analysis Plugin that leverages RuVector WASM packages for semantic clause matching, risk identification, and contract comparison with support for multiple jurisdictions and regulatory frameworks.

Plugin Name

@claude-flow/plugin-legal-contracts

Description

A comprehensive legal contract analysis plugin combining hyperbolic embeddings for legal ontology navigation with fast vector search for clause similarity. The plugin enables automated clause extraction, risk scoring, obligation tracking, and regulatory compliance checking while maintaining attorney-client privilege through on-device processing.

Key WASM Packages

PackagePurpose
micro-hnsw-wasmFast semantic search for clause similarity and precedent matching
ruvector-hyperbolic-hnsw-wasmLegal taxonomy navigation (contract types, clause hierarchies)
ruvector-attention-wasmCross-attention for contract comparison (redline analysis)
ruvector-dag-wasmContract dependency graphs (obligations, conditions, timelines)

MCP Tools

Extract and classify clauses from contracts.

typescript
{
  name: 'legal/clause-extract',
  description: 'Extract and classify clauses from legal documents',
  inputSchema: {
    type: 'object',
    properties: {
      document: { type: 'string', description: 'Contract text or file path' },
      clauseTypes: {
        type: 'array',
        items: {
          type: 'string',
          enum: [
            'indemnification', 'limitation_of_liability', 'termination',
            'confidentiality', 'ip_assignment', 'governing_law', 'arbitration',
            'force_majeure', 'warranty', 'payment_terms', 'non_compete'
          ]
        }
      },
      jurisdiction: { type: 'string', default: 'US' },
      includePositions: { type: 'boolean', default: true }
    },
    required: ['document']
  }
}

Identify and score contractual risks.

typescript
{
  name: 'legal/risk-assess',
  description: 'Assess contractual risks with severity scoring',
  inputSchema: {
    type: 'object',
    properties: {
      document: { type: 'string' },
      partyRole: { type: 'string', enum: ['buyer', 'seller', 'licensor', 'licensee', 'employer', 'employee'] },
      riskCategories: {
        type: 'array',
        items: { type: 'string', enum: ['financial', 'operational', 'legal', 'reputational', 'compliance'] }
      },
      industryContext: { type: 'string' },
      threshold: { type: 'string', enum: ['low', 'medium', 'high', 'critical'] }
    },
    required: ['document', 'partyRole']
  }
}

Compare contracts using attention-based alignment.

typescript
{
  name: 'legal/contract-compare',
  description: 'Compare two contracts with detailed diff and semantic alignment',
  inputSchema: {
    type: 'object',
    properties: {
      baseDocument: { type: 'string', description: 'Reference contract' },
      compareDocument: { type: 'string', description: 'Contract to compare' },
      comparisonMode: {
        type: 'string',
        enum: ['structural', 'semantic', 'full'],
        default: 'full'
      },
      highlightChanges: { type: 'boolean', default: true },
      generateRedline: { type: 'boolean', default: false }
    },
    required: ['baseDocument', 'compareDocument']
  }
}

Extract and track obligations, deadlines, and conditions.

typescript
{
  name: 'legal/obligation-track',
  description: 'Extract obligations, deadlines, and dependencies using DAG analysis',
  inputSchema: {
    type: 'object',
    properties: {
      document: { type: 'string' },
      party: { type: 'string', description: 'Party name to filter obligations' },
      timeframe: { type: 'string', description: 'ISO duration or date range' },
      obligationTypes: {
        type: 'array',
        items: { type: 'string', enum: ['payment', 'delivery', 'notification', 'approval', 'compliance'] }
      },
      includeDependencies: { type: 'boolean', default: true }
    },
    required: ['document']
  }
}

Match clauses against standard playbook positions.

typescript
{
  name: 'legal/playbook-match',
  description: 'Compare contract clauses against negotiation playbook',
  inputSchema: {
    type: 'object',
    properties: {
      document: { type: 'string' },
      playbook: { type: 'string', description: 'Playbook identifier or custom JSON' },
      strictness: { type: 'string', enum: ['strict', 'moderate', 'flexible'] },
      suggestAlternatives: { type: 'boolean', default: true },
      prioritizeClauses: { type: 'array', items: { type: 'string' } }
    },
    required: ['document', 'playbook']
  }
}

Use Cases

  1. Contract Review: Paralegals accelerate initial contract review with AI-assisted clause extraction
  2. M&A Due Diligence: Analyze hundreds of contracts rapidly during acquisitions
  3. Compliance Audit: Identify non-compliant clauses across contract portfolios
  4. Negotiation Support: Compare incoming contracts against standard playbook positions
  5. Obligation Management: Track deadlines and conditions across active contracts

Architecture

+------------------+     +----------------------+     +------------------+
|  Document Input  |---->|   Legal Plugin       |---->|  Clause Index    |
|  (PDF/DOCX/TXT)  |     |  (Privacy-First)     |     | (HNSW + Hyper)   |
+------------------+     +----------------------+     +------------------+
                                   |
                         +---------+---------+
                         |         |         |
                    +----+---+ +---+----+ +--+-----+
                    |Attention| | DAG   | |Hyper-  |
                    |Compare  | |Oblig. | |bolic   |
                    +---------+ +-------+ +--------+
Contract Types (Hyperbolic Embedding)
|
+-- Commercial
|   +-- Sales Agreement
|   +-- Service Agreement
|   +-- License Agreement
|   +-- Distribution Agreement
|
+-- Employment
|   +-- Employment Contract
|   +-- NDA
|   +-- Non-Compete
|
+-- Corporate
|   +-- Shareholder Agreement
|   +-- M&A Agreement
|   +-- Joint Venture

Performance Targets

MetricTargetBaseline (Traditional)Improvement
Clause extraction<2s for 50-page contract~10min (manual)300x
Risk assessment<5s full analysis~2hr (attorney review)1440x
Contract comparison<10s for two 100-page contracts~4hr (redlining)1440x
Obligation extraction<3s per contract~30min (paralegal)600x
Playbook matching<1s per clause~5min (lookup)300x

Risk Assessment

RiskLikelihoodImpactMitigation
Missed critical clauseLowHighConfidence scores, mandatory human review for low confidence
Privilege breachLowCriticalOn-device processing, no cloud transmission
Jurisdictional errorsMediumMediumMulti-jurisdiction training, jurisdiction flagging
Over-reliance on AIMediumHighClear disclaimers, attorney-in-the-loop design

Security Considerations

CRITICAL: Attorney-Client Privilege Protection

RequirementImplementationSeverity
Privilege PreservationZero-knowledge processing - no document content transmittedCRITICAL
Work Product ProtectionAnalysis results encrypted, attorney-eyes-only by defaultCRITICAL
Document IsolationEach matter processed in isolated WASM instanceCRITICAL
Chain of CustodyCryptographic proof of document handlingHIGH
Conflict DetectionPrevent cross-matter data leakageHIGH

Input Validation (CRITICAL)

All MCP tool inputs MUST be validated using Zod schemas:

typescript
// legal/clause-extract input validation
const ClauseExtractSchema = z.object({
  document: z.string().max(10_000_000), // 10MB max document size
  clauseTypes: z.array(z.enum([
    'indemnification', 'limitation_of_liability', 'termination',
    'confidentiality', 'ip_assignment', 'governing_law', 'arbitration',
    'force_majeure', 'warranty', 'payment_terms', 'non_compete'
  ])).optional(),
  jurisdiction: z.string().max(50).default('US'),
  includePositions: z.boolean().default(true)
}).refine(doc => !containsExecutableContent(doc.document), {
  message: 'Document contains potentially malicious content'
});

// legal/risk-assess input validation
const RiskAssessSchema = z.object({
  document: z.string().max(10_000_000),
  partyRole: z.enum(['buyer', 'seller', 'licensor', 'licensee', 'employer', 'employee']),
  riskCategories: z.array(z.enum(['financial', 'operational', 'legal', 'reputational', 'compliance'])).optional(),
  industryContext: z.string().max(200).optional(),
  threshold: z.enum(['low', 'medium', 'high', 'critical']).optional()
});

// legal/contract-compare input validation
const ContractCompareSchema = z.object({
  baseDocument: z.string().max(10_000_000),
  compareDocument: z.string().max(10_000_000),
  comparisonMode: z.enum(['structural', 'semantic', 'full']).default('full'),
  highlightChanges: z.boolean().default(true),
  generateRedline: z.boolean().default(false)
});

// Path traversal prevention for file inputs
function validateFilePath(path: string): boolean {
  const normalized = path.normalize(path);
  const resolved = path.resolve(normalized);
  return resolved.startsWith(ALLOWED_DOCUMENT_ROOT) &&
         !normalized.includes('..') &&
         !normalized.includes('\0');
}

WASM Security Constraints

ConstraintValueRationale
Memory Limit2GB maxHandle large contract documents
CPU Time Limit120 seconds per operationAllow complex multi-document comparison
No Network AccessEnforced by WASM sandboxPrivilege protection
No File System AccessSandboxed, matter-isolated FS onlyCross-matter isolation
Instance IsolationNew WASM instance per matterPrevent data leakage between matters

Matter Isolation (CRITICAL)

typescript
// Each legal matter MUST have isolated processing
interface MatterIsolation {
  matterId: string;           // Unique matter identifier
  wasmInstance: WebAssembly.Instance; // Dedicated WASM instance
  memoryRegion: ArrayBuffer;  // Isolated memory
  documentHashes: string[];   // Track which documents processed
  accessLog: AuditEntry[];    // Matter-specific audit trail
}

// CRITICAL: Prevent cross-matter contamination
async function processDocument(matterId: string, document: string): Promise<AnalysisResult> {
  const isolation = await getMatterIsolation(matterId);

  // Verify no cross-matter access
  if (isolation.matterId !== matterId) {
    throw new SecurityError('Cross-matter access violation');
  }

  // Process in isolated instance
  return isolation.wasmInstance.exports.analyze(document);
}

Authentication & Authorization

typescript
// Required role-based access control for legal tools
const LegalRoles = {
  PARTNER: ['clause-extract', 'risk-assess', 'contract-compare', 'obligation-track', 'playbook-match'],
  ASSOCIATE: ['clause-extract', 'risk-assess', 'contract-compare', 'obligation-track'],
  PARALEGAL: ['clause-extract', 'obligation-track'],
  CONTRACT_MANAGER: ['obligation-track', 'playbook-match'],
  CLIENT: [] // No direct tool access - results only via attorney
};

// Ethical wall enforcement
interface EthicalWall {
  matterId: string;
  blockedUsers: string[];     // Users who cannot access this matter
  reason: string;             // Conflict reason (encrypted)
  createdBy: string;          // Partner who created wall
  createdAt: string;
}
typescript
interface LegalAuditLog {
  timestamp: string;          // ISO 8601
  userId: string;             // Authenticated user ID
  userRole: string;           // Role at time of access
  matterId: string;           // Matter accessed
  toolName: string;           // MCP tool invoked
  documentHash: string;       // Hash of document processed (not content)
  operationType: 'analyze' | 'compare' | 'export';
  resultSummary: string;      // High-level result (no privileged content)
  billingCode?: string;       // Optional billing reference
}

// Audit logs MUST be:
// - Encrypted at rest (AES-256)
// - Accessible only to ethics/compliance
// - Retained per jurisdiction requirements (typically 7+ years)
// - Not contain actual document content

Identified Security Risks

Risk IDSeverityDescriptionMitigation
LEG-SEC-001CRITICALPrivilege breach via embedding leakageNo document content in embeddings, position-only analysis
LEG-SEC-002CRITICALCross-matter data contaminationIsolated WASM instances per matter
LEG-SEC-003HIGHUnauthorized document accessRole-based access, ethical wall enforcement
LEG-SEC-004HIGHWork product disclosureClient-side encryption, no cloud processing
LEG-SEC-005MEDIUMMetadata leakage (document names, dates)Metadata encryption, hash-based references

Document Security

typescript
// Document handling security
interface SecureDocumentHandler {
  // Sanitize document before processing
  sanitize(document: string): string;  // Remove macros, scripts

  // Validate document format
  validateFormat(document: string): ValidationResult;

  // Extract text safely (no code execution)
  extractText(document: Buffer, format: 'pdf' | 'docx'): string;

  // Verify document integrity
  verifyIntegrity(document: Buffer, expectedHash: string): boolean;
}

// Prevent malicious document attacks
function sanitizeDocument(content: string): string {
  // Remove potential script injections
  // Remove embedded objects that could execute
  // Validate character encoding
  // Strip metadata that could leak information
}

Privacy & Privilege

  • On-Device Processing: All analysis happens locally via WASM
  • No Cloud Transmission: Documents never leave the user's system
  • Privilege Protection: Maintains attorney-client privilege through zero-knowledge design
  • Audit Logging: Comprehensive logging for ethics compliance (content-free)
  • Ethical Wall Support: Built-in conflict checking and access barriers

Implementation Notes

Phase 1: Core Extraction

  • PDF/DOCX parsing with layout preservation
  • Clause boundary detection
  • Basic clause classification

Phase 2: Semantic Analysis

  • Legal-domain embeddings
  • HNSW index for precedent matching
  • Hyperbolic ontology for legal taxonomy

Phase 3: Advanced Features

  • Attention-based contract comparison
  • DAG-based obligation tracking
  • Playbook negotiation support

Dependencies

json
{
  "dependencies": {
    "micro-hnsw-wasm": "^0.2.0",
    "ruvector-hyperbolic-hnsw-wasm": "^0.1.0",
    "ruvector-attention-wasm": "^0.1.0",
    "ruvector-dag-wasm": "^0.1.0",
    "pdf-parse": "^1.1.1",
    "mammoth": "^1.6.0"
  }
}

Consequences

Positive

  • 10x faster contract review with consistent quality
  • Maintains attorney-client privilege through local processing
  • Scalable across contract portfolios

Negative

  • Requires domain-specific training data for accuracy
  • May miss nuanced legal arguments
  • Not a replacement for legal judgment

Neutral

  • Designed as attorney augmentation, not replacement
  • Confidence scores indicate when human review is critical
ADRRelationship
ADR-004: Plugin ArchitectureFoundation - Defines plugin structure
ADR-017: RuVector IntegrationDependency - Provides WASM packages
ADR-041: Hyperbolic ReasoningRelated - Legal taxonomy navigation
ADR-035: Code IntelligenceRelated - Shares DAG analysis patterns

References


Last Updated: 2026-01-24