Manual fallback path

Need a contract review now? Use the founder-led manual path.

If you have a freelance contract, proposal, SOW, or subcontractor agreement right now, you can send it for a manual ContractGhost-style risk review.

This is the fastest path today: see the sample output, send the contract or key clauses, and get a structured founder-led risk summary with the main issues worth negotiating before you sign.

Request manual review See sample output Response times & turnaround Back to homepage

Current paid test: $19 for a one-off review, with same-day response target for straightforward freelancer contracts. Selected early testers may still be reviewed free during validation.

Fastest path: email spazo@high-agency.com.au, attach the contract or paste the clauses, and say what worries you most.

What you get

Structured, practical contract feedback

  • Top risks ranked by severity
  • Plain-English explanation of why each clause matters
  • Suggested rewrite language where useful
  • A short negotiation-ready summary you can send back to the client
Current offer

Validation pricing

$19 one-off review is the paid test

The clearest paid hypothesis right now is not a subscription. It is a simple one-off purchase: send one freelance contract, get one structured risk review back.

Early manual reviews may still be free for selected testers during validation, but the live pricing test is whether $19 feels like an easy yes for routine freelance contract protection.

If that feels too cheap, too expensive, or only worth paying occasionally, that is exactly the signal this page is trying to learn before checkout is wired.

How to request a manual review

  1. Email spazo@high-agency.com.au with subject line: ContractGhost manual review request
  2. Attach the contract, proposal, or SOW — or paste the key clauses into the email
  3. Tell us what kind of freelance work you do and the main clause you're worried about
  4. If needed, redact names, addresses, pricing, or anything sensitive before sending

Best fit right now: website builds, retainers, design agreements, marketing scopes, copywriting contracts, subcontractor agreements, and standard freelance MSAs/SOWs.

Response target for straightforward requests: same day. If something is unusually complex or high-stakes, the reply will say so clearly instead of bluffing certainty.

Use the plain email template

This is a lower-friction intake path: fill the fields, your email app opens, attach the contract, hit send.

Suggested email template

Subject: ContractGhost manual review request Type of work: [designer / developer / marketer / copywriter / consultant] Contract type: [website build / retainer / SOW / subcontractor agreement / other] Urgency: [today / this week / just exploring] Main concern: [scope / payment / IP / termination / liability / other] What I'd like reviewed: - [paste clause or attach file] Context: - [anything important about the deal size, timeline, or client expectations] Redactions made: - [yes/no + what was removed]

What the reply will look like

  • Overall risk rating
  • Top 3-5 issues worth negotiating
  • What to ignore vs what actually matters
  • Optional rewrite language for risky clauses
  • Short founder note on whether it looks safe to sign as-is

If you want to picture the format, start with the sample report.

Best fit vs not a fit

  • Best fit: routine freelance contracts, retainers, SOWs, design/dev/marketing/copy agreements, subcontractor agreements
  • Not a fit: enterprise paper, employment, equity, acquisitions, disputes, or anything needing formal legal sign-off
  • Best use case: you want a fast steer on what matters, what to push back on, and what wording to tighten before signing

Common objections

  • "Why not just use ChatGPT?" Generic AI can summarize, but ContractGhost is focused on freelancer-specific contract traps and negotiation-ready output.
  • "Is this legal advice?" No — it is a practical risk check, not a law firm review.
  • "What if my contract includes sensitive info?" Redact what is not needed before sending. The goal is useful review, not oversharing.

Concrete example: what gets flagged and how it gets rewritten

Original risky wording

  • Revisions: “Client may request revisions as needed until satisfied.”
  • IP: “All work product becomes client property upon creation.”
  • Termination: “Client may terminate at any time for any reason.”

This is where freelancers get burned: open-ended work, ownership before payment, and weak cancellation protection.

Safer version to negotiate toward

  • Revisions: “This project includes up to two revision rounds. Additional revisions are billed at $X/hour.”
  • IP: “Ownership transfers only after full payment is received.”
  • Termination: “Client remains responsible for work completed and committed costs up to termination date.”

That is the shape of the output: practical risk explanation plus language you can actually push back with.

First outcomes & proof

There are no polished testimonials here yet because this page is still in live validation. That is deliberate. This block is designed to become the reusable proof layer as real manual reviews come in.

0

Reviews completed

Starts at zero. Updates when the first real contract review is delivered and logged.

0

Real outcomes captured

Examples like tighter payment language, capped revisions, or safer IP timing once real cases exist.

$19

Live paid test

The question now is simple: does a one-off freelancer contract check feel worth paying for?

What gets learned from each request

  • Which clause triggered the request
  • What wording made the review valuable
  • Whether the user would pay again or only occasionally
  • What should move into the eventual self-serve product

Why keep this honest

  • Fake proof weakens trust faster than zero proof
  • Early proof should come from anonymized real contracts
  • The first useful result matters more than another internal opinion
  • This makes the page ready to update the moment traffic arrives

If you send a contract now, you help create the first real result set instead of more hypothetical copy.

Important limits

  • This is not legal advice and not a law firm service
  • For high-value, unusual, or heavily negotiated deals, a qualified lawyer is still the right next step
  • Redacting unnecessary sensitive data is encouraged
  • The purpose is practical pre-sign risk spotting, not formal legal sign-off
  • If a contract is not a good fit for this review path, that will be said directly rather than forcing a weak review
Email review request See sample output See pricing hypothesis Read privacy expectations