> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://vaquill.ai/docs/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.
# Contract Debugger
> Find internal inconsistencies, contradictions, undefined terms, and broken cross-references in a contract
Contract Debugger is the QA pass before a contract goes out. It reads the document end-to-end looking for the kinds of problems that are easy to miss on a normal review - terms defined but never used, terms used but never defined, cross-references that point to the wrong section, conflicting provisions, math that does not add up.
## When To Use It
* Final review before sending a draft out
* After heavy revisions on a contract that has gone through multiple turns
* Before signing - one last check that nothing was missed
* Diligence on a contract drafted by counterparty's counsel
* Cleaning up a template that has drifted over many versions
## What It Catches
| Issue | Example |
| -------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| **Undefined terms** | "Affiliate" used in Section 4 but never defined |
| **Defined but unused** | "Permitted Transferee" defined but never appears outside the definitions |
| **Conflicting provisions** | Section 8 says term is 3 years; Section 21 says term is 5 years |
| **Broken cross-references** | "Pursuant to Section 12(b)" but Section 12 has no subsection (b) |
| **Inconsistent capitalization** | "Confidential Information" vs. "confidential information" used interchangeably |
| **Numbered list gaps** | Section 4 jumps from (i) to (iii) - is (ii) missing? |
| **Math errors** | Schedule totals do not match clause references |
| **Hanging modifiers** | "Subject to the foregoing" - foregoing what? |
| **Inconsistent defined-term variants** | "Agreement" and "this Agreement" used differently |
| **Duplicate definitions** | Same term defined twice with different language |
## How It Works
Drop in a draft or pick one already in your matter.
Launch the tool from the tools menu.
A structural pass walks definitions, cross-references, and numbering. A semantic pass looks for conflicts, ambiguity, and math errors.
Critical and High issues should be fixed before send-out. Medium and Low are clean-up items.
## Ready-to-run prompt
Run **Contract Debugger** on the attached draft. Treat this as the final QA pass before send-out.
Do both passes:
1. **Structural pass:**
* Every defined term used but never defined.
* Every defined term defined but never used.
* Every cross-reference that points to a section, subsection, schedule, or exhibit that does not exist.
* Numbered or lettered list gaps (e.g., (i), (iii) with (ii) missing).
* Duplicate definitions with conflicting language.
* Inconsistent capitalization of defined terms.
2. **Semantic pass:**
* Conflicting provisions (e.g., one clause says term is three years, another says five).
* Math errors between schedules and clause references.
* Hanging modifiers and dangling cross-references ("subject to the foregoing" with no clear antecedent).
* Integration-clause conflicts: provisions that would be overridden by the integration / merger clause but should survive.
* Governing-law / venue mismatches across clauses.
For every issue, output: issue type, location (section / page / line), exact quote of the problematic text, suggested fix in markup-ready language, and severity (Critical, High, Medium, Low). Sort by severity, then by section order. End with a one-line go / no-go: is this draft safe to send?
## Reading the Output
Each issue includes:
* The **issue type** (e.g., "Undefined term")
* The **location** in the document (section, page, line)
* A **quote** of the problematic text
* A **suggested fix**
* A **severity** rating (Critical, High, Medium, Low)
### Severity Levels
| Severity | What It Means |
| ------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Critical** | Could materially change interpretation or invalidate a clause |
| **High** | Will likely be flagged by counterparty's counsel |
| **Medium** | Poor drafting; should be fixed for clarity |
| **Low** | Style and consistency issues |
## Suggested Fixes
For each issue, the tool drafts a specific fix:
* For undefined terms - a proposed definition or a suggested replacement
* For broken cross-references - the section the reference probably meant to point to
* For conflicts - a recommendation on which provision should control and language to add to resolve
Apply the fix as a markup, export the corrections as a redline, or drop them into your draft manually.
## Clause Relationship Analysis
Beyond inconsistencies, the tool maps how clauses relate to each other:
* Which provisions reference which others
* Where dependencies exist (e.g., termination rights tied to specific breach definitions)
* Clauses that are functionally redundant
* Provisions that may be overridden by the integration clause but shouldn't be
This view helps when you are restructuring a contract or evaluating the impact of changing one clause.
## Tips
**Run at both natural checkpoints.** Once before send-out, once before signature. Each pass catches issues introduced in the round of revisions just before it.
**Pair with Contract Review.** Debugger catches structural defects; [Contract Review](/docs/guides/contract-review) catches commercial issues. Together they cover both the form and the substance.
Especially useful on inherited templates. A template that has drifted across many drafts often has defined terms with multiple definitions, cross-references that point to deleted sections, and integration clauses that quietly nullify what other clauses appear to grant. Run Debugger before you commit to a template as your firm's standard.
## Related
Substantive clause-level review against your playbook.
Diff two versions of a contract to see exactly what changed.
Ask ad-hoc questions about a document.
After Debugger cleans the draft, analyze the counterparty's tracked changes.