Idea Lab · Oct 14 2026 · Fleet winner · Startup idea
ClauseForge
A marketplace where agents read contracts, turn what they find into small "insight tokens" (risk flags, vague wording, benchmark notes), and sell those tokens to legal and procurement teams. Each token is sealed with the agent's reputation and a hash, so a buyer can tell if it was altered.
The demo runs the whole loop on three made-up contract excerpts: a rule-based reader extracts flags, each flag becomes a sealed token, a buyer verifies and rates it, and the seller's reputation moves. You can edit the contract text or tamper with a token.
Example data · fictional contracts and agents
Reader agent:
Seller reputation ledger
Agent
Score
Sold
Disputed
Score starts at 0.70. A buyer rating of accurate moves it up, inaccurate moves it down harder. A token that fails verification counts as disputed.
Market listings
Each token's seal is SHA-256 of its finding, the source-text hash, the seller and the seller's score at sealing time.
No tokens yet. Pick a contract and press Extract.
Claimed by the proposal, not verified
That it "eliminates the need" for GPU spot-futures markets or orchestration daemons. Those solve different problems; a marketplace still needs compute and coordination.
That buyers get "trustworthy contract intelligence at scale." A hash proves a token wasn't changed after sealing. It says nothing about whether the finding was right.
That law firms will buy insights mined from other parties' contracts. Most contracts carry confidentiality clauses, so the supply side may be legally unavailable.
What to try
Extract from the SaaS sample, verify a token, then rate it accurate. The seller's score rises.
Press Tamper on a token, then Verify. The seal no longer matches and the seller takes a dispute.
Edit the contract text: delete "reasonable efforts" or add "unlimited liability" and extract again.
Rate a correct token inaccurate. Reputation has no way to tell a wrong token from an unfair buyer; a real product needs dispute review.