{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"tool_responsiv","slug":"responsiv","name":"Responsiv","type":"product","url":"https://responsiv.ai","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/responsiv","categories":["documentation"],"tags":[],"pricing":{"model":"paid","free":false,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"tool_responsiv__cap_0","uri":"capability://text.generation.language.ai.powered.legal.document.drafting.with.template.intelligence","name":"ai-powered legal document drafting with template intelligence","description":"Generates initial drafts of legal documents by leveraging large language models fine-tuned on legal corpora, combined with template matching and variable substitution. The system appears to use prompt engineering or retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to inject relevant legal language patterns and boilerplate structures, reducing manual composition time for contracts, motions, and standard legal forms. Documents are generated with placeholders for jurisdiction-specific customization and attorney review.","intents":["Generate a first draft of a contract or legal document without starting from a blank page","Quickly produce boilerplate sections (indemnification, limitation of liability, etc.) for transactional documents","Create document variants for different jurisdictions or party types with minimal manual editing","Reduce time spent on repetitive legal writing tasks so attorneys can focus on substantive legal strategy"],"best_for":["Solo practitioners and small law firms handling high-volume transactional work (NDAs, employment agreements, service contracts)","In-house legal teams managing routine document generation at scale","Legal process outsourcing firms needing to accelerate document production pipelines"],"limitations":["AI-generated text requires substantial human review for accuracy, liability exposure, and jurisdiction-specific compliance—time savings claims may be overstated","No transparency on training data sources or whether documents are generated from proprietary legal databases vs. public corpora, creating citation reliability concerns","Cannot handle highly specialized or novel legal scenarios requiring deep precedent analysis; best suited to standardized transactional templates","Risk of hallucinated citations or incorrect legal language if the underlying model lacks sufficient legal training data"],"requires":["Active Responsiv account with document generation tier","Internet connectivity for cloud-based LLM inference","Attorney review workflow and liability insurance to cover AI-assisted document generation"],"input_types":["text (document type, party names, key terms, jurisdiction)","structured data (contract parameters, deal terms, party information)"],"output_types":["text (draft legal document in Word, PDF, or plain text format)","structured data (extracted contract terms, variable placeholders)"],"categories":["text-generation-language","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_responsiv__cap_1","uri":"capability://search.retrieval.legal.research.with.case.law.and.statute.citation.retrieval","name":"legal research with case law and statute citation retrieval","description":"Searches and retrieves relevant case law, statutes, and legal precedents in response to natural language research queries, likely using semantic search over a legal database (case law repositories, statute databases, legal commentary) combined with relevance ranking. The system appears to integrate citation data and return results with proper legal citations (e.g., case names, docket numbers, statute codes), reducing manual navigation of legal research platforms like Westlaw or LexisNexis.","intents":["Find relevant case law and statutes for a specific legal issue without manually searching legal databases","Retrieve properly formatted legal citations for cases and statutes to include in briefs or memoranda","Identify precedent and statutory authority for a legal argument or position","Accelerate the research phase of legal work by automating database queries and citation retrieval"],"best_for":["Attorneys and paralegals conducting routine legal research on common issues (contract interpretation, employment law, property disputes)","Solo practitioners and small firms without subscriptions to premium legal research platforms","Legal teams needing to validate citations and find supporting authority quickly"],"limitations":["Limited transparency on which legal databases are indexed (e.g., only state-level cases vs. federal courts, coverage gaps for recent decisions)","No disclosed mechanism for handling conflicting or overruled precedent; risk of returning outdated or superseded authority","Semantic search may miss relevant cases using different legal terminology or framing, requiring supplemental manual research","Cannot replace expert legal judgment on case applicability, distinguishability, or weight of authority","Unclear whether results are limited to public domain legal materials or include proprietary legal commentary"],"requires":["Active Responsiv account with research tier","Internet connectivity for database queries","Knowledge of legal research query formulation (natural language or structured search syntax)"],"input_types":["text (natural language legal research query, e.g., 'breach of contract remedies in California')","structured data (jurisdiction, practice area, date range filters)"],"output_types":["text (case summaries, statute text, legal citations)","structured data (citation metadata, relevance scores, case docket information)"],"categories":["search-retrieval","memory-knowledge"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_responsiv__cap_2","uri":"capability://text.generation.language.intelligent.legal.citation.generation.and.formatting","name":"intelligent legal citation generation and formatting","description":"Automatically generates properly formatted legal citations (Bluebook, ALWD, or jurisdiction-specific formats) for cases, statutes, regulations, and secondary sources. The system likely parses case names, docket numbers, and statute codes from research results or user input, then applies citation formatting rules to produce compliant citations. This reduces manual citation formatting work and ensures consistency across documents.","intents":["Generate properly formatted legal citations for cases and statutes without manual Bluebook lookup","Ensure citation consistency across a multi-page legal document or brief","Convert between citation formats (e.g., Bluebook to ALWD) for different jurisdictions or publication requirements","Reduce time spent on citation formatting and verification"],"best_for":["Law students and junior attorneys learning citation rules","Busy practitioners needing to quickly format citations for briefs, memoranda, and legal documents","Legal teams managing large documents with hundreds of citations requiring consistency"],"limitations":["Citation formatting rules vary by jurisdiction and publication (Bluebook vs. ALWD vs. state-specific rules); system may not support all variants","Requires accurate input data (case names, docket numbers, statute codes) to generate correct citations; garbage-in-garbage-out risk","Cannot verify citation accuracy or whether cited authority is still good law without integration with legal research databases","May not handle edge cases (unpublished opinions, administrative decisions, foreign law citations) correctly"],"requires":["Active Responsiv account","Accurate case names, docket numbers, or statute codes as input","Specification of citation format (Bluebook, ALWD, or jurisdiction-specific)"],"input_types":["text (case name, docket number, statute code, or full citation string)","structured data (case metadata, statute information)"],"output_types":["text (formatted legal citation in specified format)","structured data (citation components: case name, reporter, page number, year, etc.)"],"categories":["text-generation-language","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_responsiv__cap_3","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.document.review.and.compliance.checking.with.legal.standards","name":"document review and compliance checking with legal standards","description":"Analyzes draft legal documents against legal standards, compliance requirements, and best practices, flagging potential issues such as missing clauses, inconsistent definitions, jurisdictional gaps, or non-standard language. The system likely uses pattern matching, rule-based checks, and NLP to identify deviations from legal templates or regulatory requirements, providing feedback to attorneys before document finalization.","intents":["Identify missing or incomplete clauses in a draft contract before sending to opposing counsel","Flag jurisdictional compliance issues (e.g., missing state-specific disclosures in employment agreements)","Detect inconsistent definitions or cross-references within a multi-page legal document","Validate that a document meets regulatory or organizational requirements before execution"],"best_for":["Law firms and in-house legal teams managing high-volume document production with quality control requirements","Compliance-heavy industries (finance, healthcare, real estate) requiring regulatory validation","Transactional practices (M&A, real estate, corporate) where document completeness is critical"],"limitations":["Rule-based checks may miss context-dependent issues requiring legal judgment (e.g., whether a clause is appropriate for a specific deal structure)","Cannot replace human attorney review for high-stakes or novel legal scenarios","Accuracy depends on the completeness and correctness of underlying rule sets and templates; gaps in rules lead to missed issues","May generate false positives (flagging standard variations as errors) if rules are overly rigid","No transparency on which compliance standards or regulatory frameworks are encoded in the system"],"requires":["Active Responsiv account with document review tier","Draft legal document in supported format (Word, PDF, plain text)","Configuration of compliance rules or selection of applicable legal standards/jurisdictions"],"input_types":["text (draft legal document)","structured data (document type, jurisdiction, applicable regulations)"],"output_types":["text (review comments, flagged issues, recommendations)","structured data (issue severity, location in document, suggested fixes)"],"categories":["safety-moderation","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_responsiv__cap_4","uri":"capability://text.generation.language.jurisdiction.aware.legal.content.customization","name":"jurisdiction-aware legal content customization","description":"Adapts legal documents and research results to specific jurisdictions by applying jurisdiction-specific rules, statutes, and legal language variations. The system likely maintains jurisdiction-specific templates, statute mappings, and language variants, enabling automatic customization of documents for different states or countries without manual redrafting. This includes handling differences in contract law, regulatory requirements, and legal terminology across jurisdictions.","intents":["Generate a contract template customized for a specific state's contract law and regulatory requirements","Identify jurisdiction-specific compliance requirements (e.g., state-mandated disclosures in employment agreements)","Adapt legal language and clauses to reflect differences in state law (e.g., non-compete enforceability varies by state)","Quickly produce multi-jurisdiction versions of a document without manual redrafting"],"best_for":["Law firms and in-house teams handling multi-state or multi-country transactions","Solo practitioners and small firms lacking deep expertise in multiple jurisdictions","Legal process outsourcing firms needing to scale document production across jurisdictions"],"limitations":["Jurisdiction-specific customization requires up-to-date knowledge of state and federal law; system may lag behind recent legislative changes","Cannot handle novel or cutting-edge legal issues where jurisdiction-specific precedent is still developing","Accuracy depends on the completeness of jurisdiction-specific rule sets; gaps lead to incomplete or incorrect customization","May not capture nuanced differences in how courts interpret similar statutes across jurisdictions","Limited to jurisdictions covered in the system's database; coverage gaps for smaller states or international jurisdictions"],"requires":["Active Responsiv account","Specification of target jurisdiction(s)","Base legal document or template to customize"],"input_types":["text (legal document or template)","structured data (target jurisdiction, document type, applicable regulations)"],"output_types":["text (jurisdiction-customized legal document)","structured data (jurisdiction-specific requirements, applicable statutes)"],"categories":["text-generation-language","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_responsiv__cap_5","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.batch.legal.document.processing.and.workflow.automation","name":"batch legal document processing and workflow automation","description":"Processes multiple legal documents in batch mode, applying document generation, review, and citation formatting across a set of files or templates. The system likely supports workflow automation (e.g., generate documents → review → format citations → export) with minimal manual intervention, enabling legal teams to process high volumes of documents efficiently. This may include integration with document management systems or email for batch input/output.","intents":["Generate 50+ contract variants for different clients or deal structures in a single batch operation","Review a folder of draft documents for compliance issues without processing each file individually","Format citations across an entire legal brief or multi-document filing in one operation","Automate repetitive document processing workflows to free up paralegal and attorney time"],"best_for":["Large law firms and legal departments with high-volume document production needs","Legal process outsourcing firms and contract management teams","In-house legal teams managing document templates and standardized agreements at scale"],"limitations":["Batch processing may introduce errors if input data is inconsistent or malformed; requires data validation before processing","Workflow automation is limited to pre-defined steps; cannot handle ad-hoc or highly customized document requirements","Output quality depends on consistency of input data and accuracy of underlying document generation and review rules","No transparency on error handling or rollback mechanisms if batch processing fails partway through","May require custom integration with existing document management systems or workflows"],"requires":["Active Responsiv account with batch processing tier","Input documents or data in supported format (CSV, JSON, Word, PDF)","Specification of batch processing workflow (which operations to apply in which order)"],"input_types":["text (multiple legal documents or templates)","structured data (CSV or JSON with document parameters, party information, deal terms)"],"output_types":["text (processed documents in Word, PDF, or plain text format)","structured data (processing results, error logs, summary statistics)"],"categories":["automation-workflow","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_responsiv__cap_6","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.legal.terminology.and.language.consistency.checking","name":"legal terminology and language consistency checking","description":"Analyzes legal documents for terminology consistency, flagging instances where the same concept is referred to using different terms (e.g., 'Company' vs. 'Vendor' for the same party) or where defined terms are used inconsistently. The system likely uses NLP and pattern matching to identify terminology variations and cross-references, providing suggestions for standardization. This reduces ambiguity and potential disputes arising from inconsistent language.","intents":["Identify inconsistent use of defined terms (e.g., 'Agreement' vs. 'Contract') within a document","Flag instances where a defined term is used before being defined or after its definition scope ends","Suggest standardized terminology for legal concepts to improve document clarity","Validate that all cross-references and defined terms are consistent throughout a multi-page document"],"best_for":["Attorneys and paralegals drafting or reviewing complex multi-page legal documents","Legal teams managing document templates and standardized language","In-house counsel ensuring consistency across organizational legal documents"],"limitations":["Cannot distinguish between intentional terminology variations and errors; may flag legitimate stylistic choices as inconsistencies","Requires accurate identification of defined terms and their scope; may miss implicit definitions or context-dependent meanings","NLP-based matching may produce false positives (e.g., flagging 'party' and 'parties' as inconsistent when both are correct)","Cannot replace human judgment on whether terminology variations are legally significant or merely stylistic"],"requires":["Active Responsiv account","Legal document in supported format (Word, PDF, plain text)","Specification of defined terms or automatic detection of terminology patterns"],"input_types":["text (legal document)","structured data (list of defined terms and their definitions)"],"output_types":["text (consistency report with flagged inconsistencies and suggestions)","structured data (terminology variations, cross-reference errors, suggested standardizations)"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","safety-moderation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_responsiv__cap_7","uri":"capability://text.generation.language.ai.assisted.legal.memoranda.and.brief.generation","name":"ai-assisted legal memoranda and brief generation","description":"Generates legal memoranda and briefs by combining legal research results, case law citations, and structured legal arguments into a coherent written document. The system likely uses prompt engineering or template-based generation to structure arguments (issue, rule, analysis, conclusion), integrate citations, and produce professional legal writing. This accelerates the initial drafting phase of legal analysis and argumentation.","intents":["Generate a first draft of a legal memorandum analyzing a specific legal issue","Produce a brief outline of legal arguments with supporting case law and citations","Create a structured analysis of a legal problem (IRAC format: issue, rule, analysis, conclusion)","Accelerate the initial writing phase of legal analysis so attorneys can focus on refining arguments"],"best_for":["Junior attorneys and law students learning legal writing and analysis","Busy practitioners needing to quickly produce initial drafts of memoranda or briefs","Legal teams managing high-volume legal analysis and documentation"],"limitations":["AI-generated legal analysis requires substantial attorney review for accuracy, completeness, and persuasiveness; time savings may be limited","Cannot replace experienced legal judgment on case strategy, argument prioritization, or persuasive framing","Quality depends on the quality of input legal research and case law; garbage-in-garbage-out risk","May produce generic or formulaic legal writing that lacks the nuance and persuasiveness of human-written briefs","Risk of hallucinated citations or incorrect legal analysis if the underlying model lacks sufficient legal training"],"requires":["Active Responsiv account with memoranda/brief generation tier","Legal research results or case law citations to incorporate","Specification of legal issue, jurisdiction, and applicable law"],"input_types":["text (legal issue, facts, applicable law, case law citations)","structured data (legal research results, case metadata, argument outline)"],"output_types":["text (draft legal memorandum or brief in Word, PDF, or plain text format)","structured data (argument structure, citation list, analysis outline)"],"categories":["text-generation-language","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":42,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"high","permissions":["Active Responsiv account with document generation tier","Internet connectivity for cloud-based LLM inference","Attorney review workflow and liability insurance to cover AI-assisted document generation","Active Responsiv account with research tier","Internet connectivity for database queries","Knowledge of legal research query formulation (natural language or structured search syntax)","Active Responsiv account","Accurate case names, docket numbers, or statute codes as input","Specification of citation format (Bluebook, ALWD, or jurisdiction-specific)","Active Responsiv account with document review tier"],"failure_modes":["AI-generated text requires substantial human review for accuracy, liability exposure, and jurisdiction-specific compliance—time savings claims may be overstated","No transparency on training data sources or whether documents are generated from proprietary legal databases vs. public corpora, creating citation reliability concerns","Cannot handle highly specialized or novel legal scenarios requiring deep precedent analysis; best suited to standardized transactional templates","Risk of hallucinated citations or incorrect legal language if the underlying model lacks sufficient legal training data","Limited transparency on which legal databases are indexed (e.g., only state-level cases vs. federal courts, coverage gaps for recent decisions)","No disclosed mechanism for handling conflicting or overruled precedent; risk of returning outdated or superseded authority","Semantic search may miss relevant cases using different legal terminology or framing, requiring supplemental manual research","Cannot replace expert legal judgment on case applicability, distinguishability, or weight of authority","Unclear whether results are limited to public domain legal materials or include proprietary legal commentary","Citation formatting rules vary by jurisdiction and publication (Bluebook vs. ALWD vs. state-specific rules); system may not support all variants","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.36666666666666664,"quality":0.7300000000000001,"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":"2026-05-24T12:16:33.095Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-04-05T13:23:42.551Z","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=responsiv","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=responsiv"}},"signature":"bb/Rh1ldiSTYke3PEGVB81x0iRm3neH7KJH6EQCDcWR5Oavw+oTsr8gFyql07QnYdrQQCI14eygMlN4+jymkAQ==","signedAt":"2026-06-22T05:16:46.164Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/responsiv","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/responsiv","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=responsiv","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"}}