{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"tool_document-crunch","slug":"document-crunch","name":"Document Crunch","type":"product","url":"https://www.documentcrunch.com","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/document-crunch","categories":["automation","documentation"],"tags":[],"pricing":{"model":"paid","free":false,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"tool_document-crunch__cap_0","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.construction.domain.specific.contract.clause.extraction.and.classification","name":"construction-domain-specific contract clause extraction and classification","description":"Analyzes construction contracts using a domain-trained NLP model to identify, extract, and classify standard clauses (payment terms, liability, indemnification, change order procedures, warranty obligations) specific to construction law and industry practices. The system likely uses fine-tuned transformer models trained on construction contract corpora to recognize domain-specific terminology and clause patterns that generic document AI would miss, enabling contextual understanding of construction-specific legal language and obligations.","intents":["I need to quickly identify all payment-related clauses in a construction contract without manually reading 50 pages","I want to know if this contract includes standard construction industry protections like lien waivers or performance bonds","I need to extract and compare key terms across multiple construction contracts to spot inconsistencies"],"best_for":["construction project managers and estimators who need rapid contract triage before legal review","mid-sized construction firms without dedicated contract analysts","subcontractors comparing terms across multiple bids and agreements"],"limitations":["Domain training is limited to common construction contract patterns; highly specialized or novel clause structures may be misclassified","No transparency into training data quality or whether model was trained on representative sample of regional/state-specific construction law variations","Cannot substitute for professional legal review—missing or misinterpreted clauses could expose firms to liability"],"requires":["PDF or text-format construction contract documents","Active Document Crunch subscription/API access","Internet connectivity for cloud-based model inference"],"input_types":["PDF documents","plain text","scanned documents (if OCR-enabled)"],"output_types":["structured JSON with extracted clauses and classifications","highlighted/annotated contract PDF","summary report with key terms"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","construction-contracts"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_document-crunch__cap_1","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.automated.red.flag.detection.and.risk.flagging","name":"automated red-flag detection and risk flagging","description":"Scans contract text using rule-based and ML-based pattern matching to identify potentially problematic clauses, missing standard protections, and high-risk terms common in construction contracts. The system applies heuristic rules (e.g., 'unlimited liability clause without cap' or 'payment terms longer than 60 days') combined with learned patterns from flagged contracts to surface issues that would require manual review by a legal professional, prioritizing findings by severity.","intents":["I want to know if this contract has any obviously unfavorable payment terms or liability traps before I negotiate","I need to identify missing clauses that are standard in construction contracts but absent from this agreement","I want a quick risk assessment to decide whether to escalate this contract to our legal team"],"best_for":["construction project managers doing initial contract screening","smaller firms without in-house legal counsel","procurement teams triaging multiple vendor/subcontractor agreements"],"limitations":["Red-flag rules are heuristic-based and may produce false positives (e.g., flagging a 90-day payment term as 'high risk' when context makes it acceptable)","Cannot assess risk in context of specific project scope, budget, or relationship history—only analyzes contract text in isolation","Severity scoring is algorithmic and may not align with actual legal risk in specific jurisdictions or contract contexts","No ability to understand negotiation context or industry norms that might make flagged terms acceptable"],"requires":["Parsed or extracted contract text from previous clause extraction step","Configuration of risk thresholds and flagging rules (may be pre-configured for construction industry)","Optional: jurisdiction or contract type context to calibrate risk assessment"],"input_types":["structured clause data from extraction step","raw contract text"],"output_types":["risk report with flagged clauses ranked by severity","annotated contract highlighting problematic sections","JSON with risk scores and remediation suggestions"],"categories":["safety-moderation","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_document-crunch__cap_10","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.warranty.and.defect.liability.period.analysis","name":"warranty and defect-liability period analysis","description":"Extracts warranty obligations, defect liability periods, and post-completion responsibilities from construction contracts. The system identifies warranty duration, coverage scope, defect notification procedures, and remediation obligations, then flags potential issues like mismatched warranty periods across different contract types or unclear defect notification requirements that could lead to disputes.","intents":["I need to understand our warranty obligations under this contract and how long we're liable for defects","I want to identify if warranty periods are consistent across our subcontractor agreements","I need to know what defect notification procedures are required and what our remediation obligations are"],"best_for":["construction firms managing warranty and defect liability risk","project managers understanding post-completion responsibilities","quality assurance teams ensuring defect procedures are followed"],"limitations":["Warranty extraction may miss conditional or tiered warranty language (e.g., different coverage for different defect types)","Cannot assess whether warranty periods are adequate or market-standard without external benchmarking","Defect notification procedure extraction may miss nuanced language about notice timing or documentation requirements","No integration with project closeout or warranty management systems"],"requires":["Extracted warranty and defect liability clause data"],"input_types":["warranty and defect liability clauses"],"output_types":["warranty obligation summary (duration, coverage, remediation)","defect notification and remediation procedure","warranty period comparison across contracts","JSON with warranty and defect liability data"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_document-crunch__cap_2","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.contract.comparison.and.term.variance.analysis","name":"contract comparison and term variance analysis","description":"Enables side-by-side comparison of key terms across multiple construction contracts by extracting equivalent clauses from different documents and highlighting deviations in payment terms, liability caps, warranty periods, and other critical provisions. The system uses semantic matching (not just string matching) to identify corresponding clauses across contracts with different wording, then generates a comparison matrix showing how terms vary across agreements, helping identify inconsistencies or unfavorable outliers.","intents":["I need to compare payment terms across 5 different subcontractor agreements to spot which ones are outliers","I want to see how liability caps vary across our vendor contracts to ensure consistency","I need to identify which contracts have missing or weaker warranty provisions compared to our standard template"],"best_for":["procurement teams managing multiple vendor/subcontractor relationships","construction firms standardizing contract terms across projects","project managers comparing bids with different contractual terms"],"limitations":["Semantic matching may fail on highly customized or non-standard clause wording, leading to missed comparisons","Cannot assess whether term variations are justified by project scope, risk allocation, or market conditions—only flags differences","Comparison matrix assumes clauses are directly comparable; context-dependent terms (e.g., payment schedules tied to project milestones) may be misaligned","Requires pre-extracted structured clause data; quality of comparison depends on accuracy of upstream extraction"],"requires":["Multiple construction contracts in PDF or text format","Successful clause extraction from all documents being compared","Specification of which clause types to compare (payment, liability, warranty, etc.)"],"input_types":["2+ construction contract documents","structured clause data from extraction pipeline"],"output_types":["comparison matrix/table showing term variations","variance report highlighting outliers","side-by-side clause comparison view","CSV or JSON export of comparison data"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_document-crunch__cap_3","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.missing.clause.detection.and.gap.analysis","name":"missing-clause detection and gap analysis","description":"Compares extracted clauses from a contract against a construction industry standard template or checklist to identify missing provisions that are typically expected in construction agreements (e.g., change order procedures, dispute resolution, insurance requirements, lien waiver provisions). The system maintains a database of standard construction contract clauses and flags any that are absent from the analyzed document, providing context on why each missing clause matters and suggesting standard language for inclusion.","intents":["I need to know if this contract is missing any standard construction protections before I sign","I want to identify gaps in our subcontractor agreement template compared to industry best practices","I need to flag missing insurance or bonding requirements in this vendor contract"],"best_for":["construction firms developing or reviewing standard contract templates","project managers ensuring contracts include required protections","smaller firms without legal staff who need guidance on standard contract components"],"limitations":["Standard clause database may not reflect regional or state-specific legal requirements (e.g., lien law variations across states)","Cannot assess whether a missing clause is actually necessary for a specific project or relationship—only flags absence from template","Suggested language is generic and may not be appropriate for specific project contexts or risk profiles","No ability to understand why a clause might have been intentionally omitted (e.g., negotiated away in exchange for other terms)"],"requires":["Extracted clause data from contract analysis","Construction industry standard clause template or checklist","Optional: jurisdiction or contract type context to customize standard requirements"],"input_types":["structured clause data from extraction step","contract type specification (e.g., 'general contractor to subcontractor')"],"output_types":["gap analysis report listing missing clauses","suggested language for missing provisions","priority-ranked list of missing clauses by importance","JSON with missing clause metadata and remediation guidance"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_document-crunch__cap_4","uri":"capability://text.generation.language.contract.summarization.and.key.terms.extraction","name":"contract summarization and key-terms extraction","description":"Generates concise natural language summaries of construction contracts, highlighting key business terms (contract value, duration, payment schedule, major obligations, termination conditions) in an executive summary format. The system uses extractive and abstractive summarization techniques to condense lengthy contracts into 1-2 page summaries that capture essential information, making it easier for non-legal stakeholders to understand contract obligations without reading full documents.","intents":["I need a quick 1-page summary of this contract to brief the project team on key terms","I want to extract the payment schedule and major milestones from this 40-page contract without reading it all","I need to understand the key obligations and deliverables in this subcontractor agreement"],"best_for":["project managers and estimators who need quick contract overviews","construction firm executives reviewing multiple contracts","team members who need to understand contract terms without legal training"],"limitations":["Summarization may omit nuanced or conditional language that could be important in specific contexts","Abstractive summarization can introduce subtle inaccuracies or misrepresentations of original contract language","Cannot prioritize which terms are most important for a specific project or relationship—uses generic importance weighting","Key-terms extraction may miss context-dependent obligations (e.g., payment terms tied to project milestones rather than fixed dates)"],"requires":["Full contract text or extracted clause data","Optional: contract type or context to customize summary focus"],"input_types":["full contract text","structured clause data from extraction"],"output_types":["natural language summary (1-2 pages)","key-terms JSON with extracted business terms","executive summary with highlighted obligations","structured data with contract value, duration, payment terms"],"categories":["text-generation-language","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_document-crunch__cap_5","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.obligation.and.responsibility.mapping","name":"obligation and responsibility mapping","description":"Extracts and maps all contractual obligations, responsibilities, and deliverables for each party (general contractor, subcontractor, owner, etc.) into a structured format that shows who is responsible for what and when. The system parses obligation clauses to identify action items, deadlines, conditions, and dependencies, then organizes them by party and timeline, enabling project teams to understand their contractual commitments and track compliance.","intents":["I need to understand all of our obligations under this subcontractor agreement so I can plan project execution","I want to create a project schedule that accounts for contractual deadlines and milestone requirements","I need to identify which party is responsible for insurance, bonding, and safety compliance under this contract"],"best_for":["project managers planning execution against contract terms","construction firms ensuring contractual compliance","teams coordinating responsibilities across multiple parties"],"limitations":["Obligation extraction may miss conditional or contingent responsibilities (e.g., 'if weather delays occur, contractor must...')","Cannot assess feasibility or reasonableness of obligations—only extracts and maps them","Deadline extraction assumes explicit dates; implied or relative deadlines ('within 10 days of notice') may be misinterpreted","No integration with project scheduling tools; requires manual transfer of obligations to project management systems"],"requires":["Extracted clause data from contract analysis","Parsed obligation and responsibility language","Optional: party definitions and roles (general contractor, subcontractor, owner, etc.)"],"input_types":["structured clause data","obligation and responsibility clauses"],"output_types":["responsibility matrix showing party-to-obligation mapping","timeline of contractual deadlines and milestones","JSON with structured obligation data (party, action, deadline, condition)","compliance checklist for each party"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_document-crunch__cap_6","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.payment.terms.analysis.and.cash.flow.impact.assessment","name":"payment-terms analysis and cash-flow impact assessment","description":"Analyzes payment clauses to extract payment schedule, terms, conditions, and calculates potential cash-flow impact based on contract value and payment timing. The system identifies payment milestones, retainage percentages, holdback periods, and payment conditions (e.g., 'upon completion of phase'), then models cash-flow scenarios to show when funds are expected to be received and what impact retainage or payment delays could have on project cash flow.","intents":["I need to understand the cash-flow impact of this contract's payment terms before I bid","I want to know how much retainage will be held and when I'll receive final payment","I need to model cash-flow scenarios if payment is delayed or if we have cost overruns"],"best_for":["estimators and project managers evaluating bid profitability","construction firms managing cash flow across multiple projects","subcontractors assessing payment risk before accepting work"],"limitations":["Cash-flow modeling assumes payment terms are met as written; cannot account for payment delays or disputes","Retainage calculation may be complex if tied to project completion milestones or performance metrics","Cannot assess whether payment terms are competitive or market-standard without external benchmarking","No integration with accounting systems; requires manual entry of contract value and cost data"],"requires":["Extracted payment clause data","Contract value or bid amount","Optional: project timeline and milestone schedule"],"input_types":["payment clause text","contract value","project timeline"],"output_types":["payment schedule timeline","cash-flow projection model","retainage analysis (amount, duration, release conditions)","JSON with payment terms and cash-flow data"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_document-crunch__cap_7","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.liability.and.insurance.requirement.extraction","name":"liability and insurance requirement extraction","description":"Identifies and extracts all liability limitations, insurance requirements, indemnification clauses, and bonding obligations from construction contracts. The system parses insurance clauses to extract coverage types, minimum amounts, certificate requirements, and named insured/additional insured requirements, then cross-references liability caps and indemnification obligations to show total risk exposure and insurance adequacy.","intents":["I need to know what insurance coverage this contract requires and whether our current policies meet the requirements","I want to identify liability caps and indemnification obligations to assess our risk exposure","I need to extract bonding requirements and ensure we have adequate performance and payment bonds"],"best_for":["construction firm risk managers and insurance coordinators","project managers ensuring insurance compliance","estimators assessing total cost of insurance and bonding requirements"],"limitations":["Insurance requirement extraction may miss nuanced language about coverage triggers or exclusions","Cannot assess whether insurance amounts are adequate for actual project risk—only extracts stated requirements","Indemnification clause parsing may miss conditional or mutual indemnification language","No integration with insurance policy databases; requires manual verification that policies meet requirements"],"requires":["Extracted liability and insurance clause data","Insurance requirement definitions and standards"],"input_types":["liability and insurance clauses","indemnification language"],"output_types":["insurance requirement summary (coverage types, amounts, named insureds)","liability cap analysis","indemnification obligation mapping","JSON with insurance and liability data","compliance checklist for insurance requirements"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","safety-moderation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_document-crunch__cap_8","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.dispute.resolution.and.termination.clause.analysis","name":"dispute-resolution and termination-clause analysis","description":"Analyzes dispute resolution mechanisms (arbitration, mediation, litigation), termination conditions, and exit clauses to identify how conflicts will be resolved and under what conditions either party can terminate the contract. The system extracts arbitration requirements, venue/jurisdiction clauses, notice periods for termination, and termination-for-cause conditions, then flags potentially problematic dispute resolution terms (e.g., mandatory arbitration in unfavorable jurisdiction, short termination notice periods).","intents":["I need to understand how disputes will be resolved under this contract and what it will cost","I want to know what conditions allow us to terminate this contract and what notice period is required","I need to identify if this contract has unfavorable arbitration or jurisdiction clauses"],"best_for":["construction firm legal and risk teams evaluating contract risk","project managers understanding exit options if relationship deteriorates","estimators assessing dispute resolution costs and risks"],"limitations":["Dispute resolution analysis cannot assess enforceability of arbitration or jurisdiction clauses in specific states","Termination condition extraction may miss conditional or contingent termination rights","Cannot assess whether dispute resolution terms are favorable or market-standard without external benchmarking","No integration with legal cost estimation; cannot predict actual cost of arbitration or litigation"],"requires":["Extracted dispute resolution and termination clause data","Optional: jurisdiction or state context for enforceability assessment"],"input_types":["dispute resolution clauses","termination and exit clauses"],"output_types":["dispute resolution summary (mechanism, venue, costs)","termination conditions and notice requirements","risk assessment of dispute resolution terms","JSON with dispute resolution and termination data"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_document-crunch__cap_9","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.change.order.and.scope.change.procedure.extraction","name":"change-order and scope-change procedure extraction","description":"Identifies and extracts change order procedures, scope change mechanisms, and change request processes from construction contracts. The system parses clauses that define how changes are requested, approved, priced, and documented, then highlights potential issues like undefined change pricing mechanisms or unclear approval authority, enabling project teams to understand how scope changes will be managed and what risks exist around change order disputes.","intents":["I need to understand the change order process for this contract so I know how to request scope changes","I want to identify if this contract has clear procedures for pricing and approving changes","I need to flag change order clauses that could lead to disputes or undefined pricing"],"best_for":["project managers managing scope and change control","estimators assessing change order risk and pricing mechanisms","construction firms standardizing change order procedures"],"limitations":["Change order procedure extraction may miss nuanced language about approval authority or pricing mechanisms","Cannot assess whether change order procedures are fair or market-standard without external benchmarking","No integration with project management tools; requires manual transfer of change procedures to change control systems","Cannot predict actual change order disputes or pricing disagreements"],"requires":["Extracted change order and scope change clause data"],"input_types":["change order and scope change clauses"],"output_types":["change order procedure summary","change request and approval process flowchart","change pricing mechanism analysis","risk assessment of change order terms","JSON with change order procedure data"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":41,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"high","permissions":["PDF or text-format construction contract documents","Active Document Crunch subscription/API access","Internet connectivity for cloud-based model inference","Parsed or extracted contract text from previous clause extraction step","Configuration of risk thresholds and flagging rules (may be pre-configured for construction industry)","Optional: jurisdiction or contract type context to calibrate risk assessment","Extracted warranty and defect liability clause data","Multiple construction contracts in PDF or text format","Successful clause extraction from all documents being compared","Specification of which clause types to compare (payment, liability, warranty, etc.)"],"failure_modes":["Domain training is limited to common construction contract patterns; highly specialized or novel clause structures may be misclassified","No transparency into training data quality or whether model was trained on representative sample of regional/state-specific construction law variations","Cannot substitute for professional legal review—missing or misinterpreted clauses could expose firms to liability","Red-flag rules are heuristic-based and may produce false positives (e.g., flagging a 90-day payment term as 'high risk' when context makes it acceptable)","Cannot assess risk in context of specific project scope, budget, or relationship history—only analyzes contract text in isolation","Severity scoring is algorithmic and may not align with actual legal risk in specific jurisdictions or contract contexts","No ability to understand negotiation context or industry norms that might make flagged terms acceptable","Warranty extraction may miss conditional or tiered warranty language (e.g., different coverage for different defect types)","Cannot assess whether warranty periods are adequate or market-standard without external benchmarking","Defect notification procedure extraction may miss nuanced language about notice timing or documentation requirements","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.31666666666666665,"quality":0.72,"ecosystem":0.25,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.75,"weights":{"adoption":0.25,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.1,"match_graph":0.35,"freshness":0.05}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"active","updated_at":"2026-05-24T12:16:30.283Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-04-05T13:23:42.561Z","last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=document-crunch","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=document-crunch"}},"signature":"jPgJV+1quyjwyZycfqJ378NY5E1Xvva9eenTp7XjlLuLdPV/6oji0GZc9NwSb+jAcA69i4sY/KwZnBm5uSGzDg==","signedAt":"2026-06-22T05:10:34.983Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/document-crunch","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/document-crunch","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=document-crunch","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}