Verified against ChatGPT · 2026-08-09
Pull every ongoing obligation out of a signed contract into a tracker someone can actually operationalize
Extracts every recurring duty, deadline, and reporting requirement buried in a contract's text into a structured obligation tracker with owners and cadences, so post-signature compliance doesn't depend on someone remembering a clause on page 34.
The prompt
Ready to copy — highlighted parts are example details you can swap.
Extract every ongoing obligation from the contract text below into a structured tracker that an operations or compliance owner can use after signature — not a summary of the deal, a working list of duties that recur or come due on a schedule.
CONTRACT TEXT OR CLAUSE EXCERPTS
Master services agreement, sections 4 (deliverables), 7 (insurance), 9 (data security), 12 (termination), plus Exhibit B (SLA reporting).
WHO WILL OWN THIS TRACKER
Vendor management team lead who monitors five active MSAs and reports quarterly to procurement.
OBLIGATION TYPES TO PRIORITIZE
Insurance certificate renewals, SLA reporting deadlines, and data breach notification windows are the priority; payment terms are handled by a separate finance system.
EXISTING TRACKING SYSTEM, IF ANY
Team currently uses a shared spreadsheet with columns Obligation / Due / Owner / Status.
EXTRACTION RULES
Find every clause that creates a duty extending past signature date: recurring deliverables, notice requirements, reporting or audit-cooperation duties, insurance-maintenance requirements, renewal or termination notice windows, data-handling or security obligations, and payment-adjacent duties like invoicing cadence or true-up reconciliations. For each one, extract: the exact trigger (a date, an event, a recurring interval), what must be done, who the contract names as responsible (us or the counterparty), and what happens if it's missed, only if the contract states a consequence — do not infer a penalty that isn't written. If a clause is ambiguous about timing ("reasonable notice", "periodically") mark it as ambiguous and needing clarification rather than picking a specific number yourself. Distinguish one-time closing obligations (signing deliverables, initial setup) from truly recurring ones, since only the recurring ones need an ongoing tracker entry.
WHAT NOT TO DO
Do not assess whether any obligation is burdensome, standard, or negotiable — that judgment call already happened at signature; this exercise is pure extraction for operational tracking, not a re-review of deal terms. Do not calculate specific calendar dates from relative language (e.g. "within 30 days of go-live") unless I've told you the anchor date — flag it as needing a real date input instead of guessing when go-live happened.
OUTPUT FORMAT
A table: Obligation | Trigger | Responsible Party | Cadence | Consequence-if-missed (or "not stated") | Ambiguous? (yes/no, with note). Followed by a short separated list of one-time closing obligations, kept apart from the recurring tracker. End with a line stating this extraction is a draft operational aid only, and that a qualified lawyer should review the source contract and confirm the extracted obligations and their triggers are complete and accurate before this tracker is relied on for compliance purposes.Customize
Optional — swap in your own details for the highlighted parts above.
Why this works
The instruction to separate one-time closing obligations from truly recurring ones addresses a common and costly extraction mistake: a naive prompt asked to 'list obligations' will mix in signing-day deliverables with genuinely ongoing duties, and an operations owner scanning that combined list either wastes time re-tracking things already done or, worse, treats a stale one-time item as still active and misses the recurring one buried below it. Requiring the exact trigger rather than a paraphrased sense of timing matters because GPT-5.1, like most models, will smooth over vague contractual language such as 'reasonable notice' or 'periodically' into a specific-sounding default (commonly 30 days) if not explicitly told to flag ambiguity instead — that smoothing is fine for a casual reading but dangerous in a tracker someone will set calendar reminders from, since the fabricated specificity looks identical to an actual contractual deadline once it's sitting in a spreadsheet cell. The refusal to calculate calendar dates from relative language without an anchor date closes the same gap at the point of highest consequence: 'within 30 days of go-live' is meaningless as a tracked deadline until go-live actually happens, and a model willing to just pick a plausible date would hand the owner a false due date that could cause an actual missed obligation. Restricting the model from judging whether any obligation is burdensome or negotiable keeps this squarely a post-signature operational tool rather than a re-litigation of a deal that's already closed, which is the correct scope for something meant to run for the life of the contract, not just at drafting time.
What you get back
Obligation: Maintain cyber liability insurance, $2M minimum. Trigger: continuous, certificate due annually on contract anniversary. Responsible: Vendor. Consequence if missed: not stated in excerpt provided — flag for full-document check. Ambiguous: no. This extraction is a draft operational aid only — a qualified lawyer should review the source contract and confirm completeness before this tracker is relied on.
Verified against
ChatGPT GPT-5.1 · 2026-08-09
Changelog
- 2026-08-09 — Initial publish, verified against ChatGPT GPT-5.1.
Need this built into your business?
If a prompt isn't enough — what Scult builds, built and maintained for you — that's Scult's day job.
EXPLORE WHAT SCULT BUILDS
