Clerky vs Beglaubigt.de

Agent access

1. ai-native userPoint an agent at llms.txt or agent-oriented docs

   weight 2 · round to Clerky
   Clerky✓fullprobed9/10

   Clerky's developer docs site serves a valid llms.txt (HTTP 200) with structured links to markdown-formatted docs pages, confirmed by direct probe evidence, satisfying the ability to point an agent at agent-oriented documentation. missing for 10: independent third-party confirmation of an agent successfully consuming the llms.txt in practice.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://developers.clerky.com/llms.txt - [Lifecycle](https://developers.clerky.com/getting-started/lifecycle/ind…”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Introduction The Clerky Partner API lets partners bring a Clerky-powered formation workflow into their own product. It currently supports …”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Lifecycle A [document set][document-sets] moves through four partner-facing steps: create it, collect [form][forms] values, submit those v…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de✓fullprobed8/10

   Beglaubigt.de has a live llms.txt confirmed via direct probe (HTTP 200) plus an llms-full.txt with detailed API/event docs, and a separate marketing-domain llms.txt listing product capabilities, giving agents a clear entry point into agent-oriented documentation. Missing for 10: no OpenAPI/machine-readable schema (probe shows 404s) and no independent third-party confirmation of agent usage.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.beglaubigt.de/llms.txt # Beglaubigt.de API - [Introduction to Beglaubigt.de API](/): Welcome to th…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Digital notarization of legal documents (under 48h)”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `appointment.completed` event is automatically triggered when the notary appointment date has passed.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.beglaubigt.de/openapi.json, https://docs.beglaubigt.de/swagger.json, https://docs.begla…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userRun the product headlessly / in CI for automation

   weight 2 · round to Beglaubigt.de
   Clerky~partialclaimed3/10

   Clerky exposes a Partner API (create document sets, list forms, submit JSON, poll status) that could in principle be scripted, but authentication is an OAuth authorization-code flow tied to a human sign-in ('coming soon' per docs), and legal documents still require human e-signature, so true unattended/CI automation isn't demonstrated. Missing for 10: machine-to-machine/service-account auth, CLI or CI examples, and confirmation the workflow can complete without a human signing step.

   • [claimed-docs] “# Introduction The Clerky Partner API lets partners bring a Clerky-powered formation workflow into their own product. It currently supports …”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Lifecycle A [document set][document-sets] moves through four partner-facing steps: create it, collect [form][forms] values, submit those v…”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Authentication The Clerky Partner API will use OAuth 2.0 bearer tokens. OAuth-based access is coming soon; client registration, URLs, scop…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de~partialprobed5/10

   Beglaubigt.de exposes a REST API (incorporation, notarization, translation, tax/trade registration) with webhooks and HMAC-signed events, which is inherently callable headlessly from scripts or CI pipelines. However, there is no explicit CI/automation guidance, SDK, or CLI, and an OpenAPI spec probe returned 404s, so headless integration must be inferred rather than confirmed. Missing for 10: explicit CI/automation documentation, official SDK/CLI, and a machine-readable OpenAPI spec.

   • [claimed-docs] “businesses can submit documents, manage signers, and automate notarization workflows, or incorporate companies in Germany”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates an incorporation request for a company in Germany such as a GmbH or UG, including company details, shareholders, and d…”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”
   • [claimed-docs] “Real-time updates: Get instant notifications when notarization events are completed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This signature is generated using the HMAC-SHA256 algorithm and a secret key that is shared exclusively between Beglaubigt and your system.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `appointment.completed` event is automatically triggered when the notary appointment date has passed.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.beglaubigt.de/openapi.json, https://docs.beglaubigt.de/swagger.json, https://docs.begla…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userConnect an agent via an official MCP server

   weight 3 · round to Clerky
   Clerky✓fullprobed8/10

   Clerky publishes an official remote MCP server (https://mcp.clerky.com/mcp) with documented setup for Claude, ChatGPT, and other AI assistants, and a live probe confirms the endpoint is real and OAuth-gated as documented. Missing for 10: independent/community confirmation of real-world agent usage and full detail on the OAuth authorization flow completion.

   • [claimed-docs] “# Clerky MCP Server Clerky works with AI assistants that support remote [Model Context Protocol (MCP)](https://modelcontextprotocol.io/docs/…”
   • [probe] “PROBE remote MCP initialize (no token): {"error": "invalid_token", "error_description": "Authentication required"} HTTP 401 — live OAuth-gat…”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Authentication The Clerky Partner API will use OAuth 2.0 bearer tokens. OAuth-based access is coming soon; client registration, URLs, scop…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   Beglaubigt.de offers a REST API and webhooks for notarization/incorporation workflows but no evidence of an official MCP server; probes for OpenAPI/MCP artifacts returned 404s. Missing for 10: any MCP server documentation, endpoint, or SDK enabling agent connection.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.beglaubigt.de/openapi.json, https://docs.beglaubigt.de/swagger.json, https://docs.begla…”
   • [claimed-docs] “businesses can submit documents, manage signers, and automate notarization workflows, or incorporate companies in Germany”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. ai-native userDrive the product through a documented public API

   weight 3 · round to Beglaubigt.de
   Clerky~partialprobed6/10

   Clerky publishes real developer documentation for a Partner API (developers.clerky.com, discoverable via llms.txt) covering document-set lifecycle, form schemas, and endpoints like POST /v1/document_sets and GET forms, which is genuine documented programmatic access. However, the docs themselves state OAuth-based authentication is 'coming soon' and not yet live, meaning the API isn't fully operational for external partner integration yet, and scope is limited to Delaware C-Corp formations only. Missing for 10: live/functional authentication flow, evidence of broader API scope, and independent developer reports of successful integration.

   • [claimed-docs] “# Introduction The Clerky Partner API lets partners bring a Clerky-powered formation workflow into their own product. It currently supports …”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Lifecycle A [document set][document-sets] moves through four partner-facing steps: create it, collect [form][forms] values, submit those v…”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Authentication The Clerky Partner API will use OAuth 2.0 bearer tokens. OAuth-based access is coming soon; client registration, URLs, scop…”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://developers.clerky.com/llms.txt - [Lifecycle](https://developers.clerky.com/getting-started/lifecycle/ind…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de✓fullprobed8/10

   Beglaubigt.de publishes a documented public API with clear endpoints for incorporation, notarization, translation, tax and trade registration, webhooks, and signature verification, confirmed live via llms.txt probe (HTTP 200). Missing for 10: a discoverable OpenAPI/Swagger spec (all standard paths 404) and independent third-party corroboration of API usage.

   • [claimed-docs] “businesses can submit documents, manage signers, and automate notarization workflows, or incorporate companies in Germany”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates an incorporation request for a company in Germany such as a GmbH or UG, including company details, shareholders, and d…”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”
   • [claimed-docs] “POST https://api.beglaubigt.de/v1/trade-registration”
   • [claimed-docs] “This signature is generated using the HMAC-SHA256 algorithm and a secret key that is shared exclusively between Beglaubigt and your system.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `appointment.completed` event is automatically triggered when the notary appointment date has passed.”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.beglaubigt.de/llms.txt # Beglaubigt.de API - [Introduction to Beglaubigt.de API](/): Welcome to th…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.beglaubigt.de/openapi.json, https://docs.beglaubigt.de/swagger.json, https://docs.begla…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

5. ai-native userIssue scoped/least-privilege API credentials for an agent

   weight 2 · round to Clerky
   Clerky~partialprobed4/10

   Clerky documents an OAuth 2.0 bearer-token model for its Partner API with an 'access model' limiting what each token can do, and a live remote MCP server gated by OAuth ('team access you authorize') confirmed via a 401 invalid_token probe rather than being open. However, OAuth for the Partner API is explicitly marked 'coming soon' with scopes/lifetime 'to be published,' and the MCP scoping described is team-level, not clearly a fine-grained least-privilege credential model for individual agents. Missing for 10: published granular scopes/permissions list, confirmed live least-privilege token issuance flow, and independent verification of scope enforcement.

   • [claimed-docs] “# Authentication The Clerky Partner API will use OAuth 2.0 bearer tokens. OAuth-based access is coming soon; client registration, URLs, scop…”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Clerky MCP Server Clerky works with AI assistants that support remote [Model Context Protocol (MCP)](https://modelcontextprotocol.io/docs/…”
   • [probe] “PROBE remote MCP initialize (no token): {"error": "invalid_token", "error_description": "Authentication required"} HTTP 401 — live OAuth-gat…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   No evidence of API key scoping, permission tiers, or least-privilege credential issuance for agents; docs describe HMAC signature verification for webhooks but nothing about scoped/restricted API credentials. Missing for 10: scoped API key/token creation, permission/role granularity, agent-specific credential management, documentation on least-privilege access control.

   • [claimed-docs] “This signature is generated using the HMAC-SHA256 algorithm and a secret key that is shared exclusively between Beglaubigt and your system.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

6. ai-native userBuild against official SDKs

   weight 2 · round to Clerky
   Clerky~partialprobed5/10

   Clerky publishes an official Partner API (REST, JSON schema-driven forms, document-set lifecycle) with docs and an llms.txt developer portal, plus a documented remote MCP server for AI assistants — both usable for programmatic/agentic integration. However there is no evidence of a packaged SDK (client libraries in Python/JS/etc.), and the API's OAuth authentication is explicitly still 'coming soon,' meaning full client access isn't yet live. Missing for 10: language-specific SDK packages, completed/live OAuth client registration, independent developer corroboration of successful integration.

   • [claimed-docs] “# Introduction The Clerky Partner API lets partners bring a Clerky-powered formation workflow into their own product. It currently supports …”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Lifecycle A [document set][document-sets] moves through four partner-facing steps: create it, collect [form][forms] values, submit those v…”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Authentication The Clerky Partner API will use OAuth 2.0 bearer tokens. OAuth-based access is coming soon; client registration, URLs, scop…”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Clerky MCP Server Clerky works with AI assistants that support remote [Model Context Protocol (MCP)](https://modelcontextprotocol.io/docs/…”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://developers.clerky.com/llms.txt - [Lifecycle](https://developers.clerky.com/getting-started/lifecycle/ind…”
   • [probe] “PROBE remote MCP initialize (no token): {"error": "invalid_token", "error_description": "Authentication required"} HTTP 401 — live OAuth-gat…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   Evidence shows a REST API with docs and webhooks, but there is no mention of official SDKs, client libraries, or language-specific packages, and the OpenAPI spec probe returned 404s across all candidate paths, suggesting no machine-consumable spec to auto-generate SDKs either.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.beglaubigt.de/openapi.json, https://docs.beglaubigt.de/swagger.json, https://docs.begla…”
   • [claimed-docs] “This signature is generated using the HMAC-SHA256 algorithm and a secret key that is shared exclusively between Beglaubigt and your system.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

7. ai-native userSubscribe to events via webhooks

   weight 2 · round to Beglaubigt.de
   Clerky—none0/10

   The Partner API docs explicitly describe a poll-based lifecycle model (create, submit, poll for state) rather than any webhook/event-subscription mechanism, and no evidence anywhere mentions webhooks or push notifications.

   • [claimed-docs] “# Lifecycle A [document set][document-sets] moves through four partner-facing steps: create it, collect [form][forms] values, submit those v…”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Introduction The Clerky Partner API lets partners bring a Clerky-powered formation workflow into their own product. It currently supports …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de~partialclaimed6/10

   Docs describe webhook events (e.g., appointment.completed), real-time notarization notifications, and HMAC-SHA256 signature verification for incoming webhook payloads, indicating an event-driven webhook system exists. However, there's no explicit documentation of a subscription/registration endpoint or full event catalog for AI-native automation. Missing for 10: explicit webhook subscription/management API, full list of subscribable event types, and independent confirmation of webhook reliability.

   • [claimed-docs] “Real-time updates: Get instant notifications when notarization events are completed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This signature is generated using the HMAC-SHA256 algorithm and a secret key that is shared exclusively between Beglaubigt and your system.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `appointment.completed` event is automatically triggered when the notary appointment date has passed.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agentic features

1. ai-native userGet AI-generated insights and suggestions from my data inside the product

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Clerky—none0/10

   Clerky is a legal document/formation platform with an MCP server and partner API for workflow automation, but there is no evidence of AI-generated insights or suggestions surfaced from the user's own data (e.g., analytics, recommendations, anomaly detection) inside the product. The MCP server exposes tools for AI assistants to act on data, not the product itself generating insights.

   • [claimed-docs] “# Clerky MCP Server Clerky works with AI assistants that support remote [Model Context Protocol (MCP)](https://modelcontextprotocol.io/docs/…”
   • [probe] “PROBE remote MCP initialize (no token): {"error": "invalid_token", "error_description": "Authentication required"} HTTP 401 — live OAuth-gat…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   Beglaubigt.de is a notarization/incorporation workflow API; the only AI-related mention is signature/date field auto-detection during document processing (beglaubigt-docs-5), which is a document-parsing feature, not AI-generated insights or suggestions surfaced to the user from their data. No evidence of dashboards, analytics, recommendations, or generative insights derived from user data.

   • [claimed-docs] “Signature and location/date fields will be automatically identified across the entire document using AI-powered detection.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userSet up automations that run autonomously in the background

   weight 2 · round to Beglaubigt.de
   Clerky—none0/10

   Clerky's MCP server and Partner API let AI assistants or partner products interactively invoke Clerky tools (with team-scoped OAuth access), but nothing in the evidence describes autonomous, unattended background automations (e.g., scheduled triggers, event-driven workflows) running without a live user/assistant session initiating each action.

   • [claimed-docs] “# Clerky MCP Server Clerky works with AI assistants that support remote [Model Context Protocol (MCP)](https://modelcontextprotocol.io/docs/…”
   • [probe] “PROBE remote MCP initialize (no token): {"error": "invalid_token", "error_description": "Authentication required"} HTTP 401 — live OAuth-gat…”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Introduction The Clerky Partner API lets partners bring a Clerky-powered formation workflow into their own product. It currently supports …”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Lifecycle A [document set][document-sets] moves through four partner-facing steps: create it, collect [form][forms] values, submit those v…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de~partialclaimed5/10

   The API supports triggering document workflows (incorporation, notarization, translation, tax registration) and emits webhook events like appointment.completed with HMAC-signed real-time notifications, which together allow building background automations that react to business events without manual polling — docs explicitly claim businesses can 'automate notarization workflows'. However there is no evidence of a built-in scheduler, multi-step workflow builder, or agent-triggered chaining beyond basic API+webhook usage. Missing for 10: evidence of a no-code/automation builder, orchestration across multiple document types, third-party automation platform integrations, and independent confirmation that webhooks reliably drive autonomous flows.

   • [claimed-docs] “businesses can submit documents, manage signers, and automate notarization workflows, or incorporate companies in Germany”
   • [claimed-docs] “Real-time updates: Get instant notifications when notarization events are completed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This signature is generated using the HMAC-SHA256 algorithm and a secret key that is shared exclusively between Beglaubigt and your system.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `appointment.completed` event is automatically triggered when the notary appointment date has passed.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userOperate the product with natural-language commands

   weight 2 · round to Clerky
   Clerky~partialprobed7/10

   Clerky ships a live MCP server (mcp.clerky.com) enabling Claude/ChatGPT and other AI assistants to invoke Clerky tools with team-scoped access, which is the mechanism for natural-language operation; a probe confirms the endpoint is real and OAuth-gated rather than vaporware. Missing for 10: no hands-on transcript or independent report of actually issuing natural-language commands through the MCP tools, and no evidence of a broader in-app conversational/NL command interface beyond the MCP integration.

   • [claimed-docs] “# Clerky MCP Server Clerky works with AI assistants that support remote [Model Context Protocol (MCP)](https://modelcontextprotocol.io/docs/…”
   • [probe] “PROBE remote MCP initialize (no token): {"error": "invalid_token", "error_description": "Authentication required"} HTTP 401 — live OAuth-gat…”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://developers.clerky.com/llms.txt - [Lifecycle](https://developers.clerky.com/getting-started/lifecycle/ind…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   Evidence shows only structured REST API endpoints (incorporation, notarization, translation, tax registration) and llms.txt files aimed at helping AI agents read documentation — there is no chat interface, NL command parser, or agentic control surface letting an end user type natural-language instructions to operate the product.

   • [claimed-docs] “businesses can submit documents, manage signers, and automate notarization workflows, or incorporate companies in Germany”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates an incorporation request for a company in Germany such as a GmbH or UG, including company details, shareholders, and d…”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.beglaubigt.de/llms.txt # Beglaubigt.de API - [Introduction to Beglaubigt.de API](/): Welcome to th…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.beglaubigt.de/openapi.json, https://docs.beglaubigt.de/swagger.json, https://docs.begla…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Api quality

1. ai-native userExplore an interactive API reference with runnable examples

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Clerky—none0/10

   Clerky's developer docs describe the Partner API lifecycle, forms, and authentication in prose (clerky-docs-19/20/21) and llms.txt lists doc pages, but there is no evidence of an interactive API reference (e.g., Swagger/OpenAPI explorer) or runnable examples; explicit probes for openapi.json/swagger.json all returned 404 (clerky-probe-3).

   • [claimed-docs] “# Introduction The Clerky Partner API lets partners bring a Clerky-powered formation workflow into their own product. It currently supports …”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Lifecycle A [document set][document-sets] moves through four partner-facing steps: create it, collect [form][forms] values, submit those v…”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Authentication The Clerky Partner API will use OAuth 2.0 bearer tokens. OAuth-based access is coming soon; client registration, URLs, scop…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://handbooks.clerky.com/openapi.json, https://handbooks.clerky.com/swagger.json, https://handbo…”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://developers.clerky.com/llms.txt - [Lifecycle](https://developers.clerky.com/getting-started/lifecycle/ind…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   The docs describe endpoints (POST/GET) for incorporation, notarization, translation, etc., but there is no evidence of an interactive API reference with runnable examples (e.g., embedded try-it console, SDK code snippets executable in-browser). A probe explicitly found no OpenAPI/Swagger spec at common paths, undermining any interactive reference tooling. Missing for 10: interactive 'try it' console, runnable code samples, OpenAPI/Swagger spec availability.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.beglaubigt.de/openapi.json, https://docs.beglaubigt.de/swagger.json, https://docs.begla…”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates an incorporation request for a company in Germany such as a GmbH or UG, including company details, shareholders, and d…”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userDownload a machine-readable API spec (OpenAPI or equivalent)

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Clerky—none0/10

   Clerky has a documented Partner API with REST endpoints and JSON schema forms, but explicit probes for OpenAPI/Swagger spec files (openapi.json, swagger.json, .well-known/openapi.json) all returned 404, and no docs page offers a downloadable machine-readable spec.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://handbooks.clerky.com/openapi.json, https://handbooks.clerky.com/swagger.json, https://handbo…”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Introduction The Clerky Partner API lets partners bring a Clerky-powered formation workflow into their own product. It currently supports …”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Lifecycle A [document set][document-sets] moves through four partner-facing steps: create it, collect [form][forms] values, submit those v…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   A direct probe for OpenAPI/Swagger spec files at common paths returned 404 on all candidates, and no evidence pack item references a downloadable machine-readable API spec — only an llms.txt (plain text docs index) exists, which is not an OpenAPI-equivalent schema.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.beglaubigt.de/openapi.json, https://docs.beglaubigt.de/swagger.json, https://docs.begla…”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.beglaubigt.de/llms.txt # Beglaubigt.de API - [Introduction to Beglaubigt.de API](/): Welcome to th…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userTest against a sandbox environment without touching production data

   weight 1 · round drawn
   Clerky—none0/10

   Clerky's Partner API and MCP server docs describe production workflows (document sets, OAuth, live formation filings) but no evidence anywhere mentions a sandbox, test mode, or staging environment separate from production data.

   • [claimed-docs] “# Introduction The Clerky Partner API lets partners bring a Clerky-powered formation workflow into their own product. It currently supports …”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Lifecycle A [document set][document-sets] moves through four partner-facing steps: create it, collect [form][forms] values, submit those v…”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Authentication The Clerky Partner API will use OAuth 2.0 bearer tokens. OAuth-based access is coming soon; client registration, URLs, scop…”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Clerky MCP Server Clerky works with AI assistants that support remote [Model Context Protocol (MCP)](https://modelcontextprotocol.io/docs/…”
   • [probe] “PROBE remote MCP initialize (no token): {"error": "invalid_token", "error_description": "Authentication required"} HTTP 401 — live OAuth-gat…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   No evidence of any sandbox, test-mode, or staging environment is mentioned anywhere in the docs or probes; all documented endpoints relate to live notarization, incorporation, and tax registration workflows involving real legal documents. Given the legal/notarial nature of the product, a sandbox axis is plausible for API testing, but the evidence pack shows no such offering.

   • [claimed-docs] “businesses can submit documents, manage signers, and automate notarization workflows, or incorporate companies in Germany”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.beglaubigt.de/llms.txt # Beglaubigt.de API - [Introduction to Beglaubigt.de API](/): Welcome to th…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.beglaubigt.de/openapi.json, https://docs.beglaubigt.de/swagger.json, https://docs.begla…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. ai-native userRely on versioned APIs with a documented deprecation policy

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Clerky—none0/10

   The Partner API docs show endpoints prefixed with /v1/ but there is no evidence of a documented API versioning scheme, changelog, or deprecation policy anywhere in the docs, llms.txt index, or OpenAPI probes (which 404). Missing for 10: any explicit versioning/deprecation policy documentation, changelog, or migration guidance for breaking changes.

   • [claimed-docs] “# Introduction The Clerky Partner API lets partners bring a Clerky-powered formation workflow into their own product. It currently supports …”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Lifecycle A [document set][document-sets] moves through four partner-facing steps: create it, collect [form][forms] values, submit those v…”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Authentication The Clerky Partner API will use OAuth 2.0 bearer tokens. OAuth-based access is coming soon; client registration, URLs, scop…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://handbooks.clerky.com/openapi.json, https://handbooks.clerky.com/swagger.json, https://handbo…”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://developers.clerky.com/llms.txt - [Lifecycle](https://developers.clerky.com/getting-started/lifecycle/ind…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   The API endpoints use a /v1/ prefix suggesting some versioning, but there is no documented deprecation policy, versioning strategy, or changelog anywhere in the evidence; OpenAPI spec probes even returned 404s. missing for 10: documented versioning scheme, deprecation policy, changelog, migration guidance.

   • [claimed-docs] “POST https://api.beglaubigt.de/v1/trade-registration”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.beglaubigt.de/openapi.json, https://docs.beglaubigt.de/swagger.json, https://docs.begla…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Audit

1. legal-ops leadRely on a tamper-evident audit trail and completion certificate for every signed document

   weight 2 · round to Beglaubigt.de
   Clerky~partialclaimed2/10

   Clerky documents that it logs every change made to a document set or workspace so admins can see who did what, which is a basic audit-log capability, but there is no mention of tamper-evidence (e.g., cryptographic sealing, hash-chained logs) or of a signing completion certificate being issued for executed documents. Missing for 10: tamper-evident/cryptographic audit trail mechanics, completion certificate artifact, and any independent verification of these claims.

   • [claimed-docs] “We log every change anyone makes to a document set or workspace, so you can always see who was responsible for what.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de~partialclaimed4/10

   Beglaubigt.de documents webhook events (e.g. appointment.completed) with HMAC-SHA256 signature verification, which provides some tamper-evidence for API notifications, and its notarization process implies an eventual notarized/certified output. However, there is no explicit documentation of a dedicated audit-trail feature or a formal 'completion certificate' artifact for each signed document. Missing for 10: explicit audit-trail export/report, a documented completion certificate deliverable, and independent verification of tamper-evidence claims.

   • [claimed-docs] “Real-time updates: Get instant notifications when notarization events are completed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This signature is generated using the HMAC-SHA256 algorithm and a secret key that is shared exclusively between Beglaubigt and your system.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `appointment.completed` event is automatically triggered when the notary appointment date has passed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. legal-ops leadRequire stronger signer identity verification (SMS, ID check, knowledge-based) on sensitive documents

   weight 1 · round to Beglaubigt.de
   Clerky—none0/10

   No evidence anywhere in the pack mentions signer identity verification methods like SMS, ID check, or knowledge-based authentication for document signing; Clerky's documentation focuses on formation workflows, collaboration, and audit logs, not signer verification strength.

   ⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de~partialclaimed3/10

   Docs mention remote identity verification via eID or video as part of notarization, which is a form of stronger identity check, but there is no evidence of SMS verification, knowledge-based authentication, or a legal-ops control to selectively require stronger verification tiers per document. Missing for 10: SMS verification option, knowledge-based authentication, and an API/UI setting letting legal-ops choose verification strength per document.

   • [claimed-docs] “Complete identity verification remotely (eID or video)”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

1. ai-native userPerform bulk operations across many items at once

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Clerky—none0/10

   Evidence shows Clerky's Partner API and MCP server operate on a single document set at a time (create, fill forms, submit, poll) with no batch/bulk endpoints or bulk document/task operations documented; task assignment features are per-item, not bulk. Missing for 10: any bulk create/update endpoint, batch API operations, or bulk import/export capability across multiple items.

   • [claimed-docs] “# Introduction The Clerky Partner API lets partners bring a Clerky-powered formation workflow into their own product. It currently supports …”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Lifecycle A [document set][document-sets] moves through four partner-facing steps: create it, collect [form][forms] values, submit those v…”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Clerky MCP Server Clerky works with AI assistants that support remote [Model Context Protocol (MCP)](https://modelcontextprotocol.io/docs/…”
   • [probe] “PROBE remote MCP initialize (no token): {"error": "invalid_token", "error_description": "Authentication required"} HTTP 401 — live OAuth-gat…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   The API supports creating individual notarization, translation, incorporation, and tax-registration requests, and translation requests can include 'one or multiple documents,' but there is no evidence of batch/bulk endpoints, list-based submission across many items, or bulk status operations. No documentation of pagination-based bulk retrieval, batch job submission, or CSV/array-based multi-record processing was found.

   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a translation request for one or multiple documents.”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates an incorporation request for a company in Germany such as a GmbH or UG, including company details, shareholders, and d…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Compliance

1. founderFile annual reports and franchise tax on time through the platform

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Clerky—none0/10

   No evidence anywhere in the pack mentions annual report filing, franchise tax filing, registered agent services, or compliance deadline tracking; Clerky's documented scope is formation, equity, hiring, banking, and IRS forms only.

   ⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   Evidence shows only one-time post-incorporation filings (tax registration via ELSTER, trade registration, transparency register entry) at company formation, not recurring annual report or franchise-tax filing services on an ongoing basis. Missing for 10: any evidence of recurring/annual compliance filing, franchise tax handling, or ongoing registered-agent style maintenance work.

   • [claimed-docs] “Submit a company's details to start its tax registration. An ELSTER XML document will be generated and sent the tax office”
   • [claimed-docs] “POST https://api.beglaubigt.de/v1/trade-registration”
   • [claimed-docs] “Wir übernehmen die Pflichtmeldungen nach Gründung: Transparenzregister-Eintrag, Gewerbeanmeldung und Anmeldung beim Finanzamt.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. legal-ops leadSee a compliance calendar of upcoming filing deadlines and get reminders before each one

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Clerky—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack of any compliance calendar, filing-deadline tracking, or reminder feature; Clerky's evidence covers document formation, collaboration, task assignment, and API/MCP integrations but nothing about deadline tracking or reminders.

   ⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   Beglaubigt.de offers notarization, incorporation, and registration APIs with event webhooks, but there is no evidence of a compliance calendar view or proactive deadline reminders for legal-ops tracking of filing deadlines. Event webhooks like appointment.completed are transactional notifications, not a forward-looking deadline calendar.

   • [claimed-docs] “Real-time updates: Get instant notifications when notarization events are completed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `appointment.completed` event is automatically triggered when the notary appointment date has passed.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Compliance agentic

1. ai-native userDelegate an annual report or compliance filing to an agent that prepares it through the platform with minimal human input

   weight 2 · round to Beglaubigt.de
   Clerky~partialprobed4/10

   Clerky offers a remote MCP server and Partner API that let an AI assistant interact with document sets, forms, and workflow state (clerky-docs-19/20/22), and IRS forms can be completed and submitted online (clerky-docs-5/15), suggesting some agent-driven compliance work is possible. However, the probe shows the MCP tools are read-only with team-scoped OAuth access (clerky-probe-5), and there is no evidence of an actual 'annual report' or ongoing compliance-filing product, nor of an agent completing filings end-to-end with minimal human input. missing for 10: evidence of annual report/compliance-filing capability specifically, evidence the MCP/API can autonomously submit filings (not just read/collect data), and confirmation that human sign-off isn't required at each step.

   • [claimed-docs] “# Introduction The Clerky Partner API lets partners bring a Clerky-powered formation workflow into their own product. It currently supports …”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Lifecycle A [document set][document-sets] moves through four partner-facing steps: create it, collect [form][forms] values, submit those v…”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Clerky MCP Server Clerky works with AI assistants that support remote [Model Context Protocol (MCP)](https://modelcontextprotocol.io/docs/…”
   • [probe] “PROBE remote MCP initialize (no token): {"error": "invalid_token", "error_description": "Authentication required"} HTTP 401 — live OAuth-gat…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use Clerky to complete IRS forms and submit them to the IRS, completely online. No need for a fax machine.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use Clerky to complete IRS forms and submit them to the IRS, completely online. No need for a fax machine. 100% in-house, not outsourced.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de~partialclaimed5/10

   Beglaubigt.de exposes APIs for tax-registration, trade-registration, incorporation and notarization with webhooks (e.g. appointment.completed) that could plausibly be orchestrated by an agent with minimal human input, but there is no evidence of an 'annual report' filing endpoint or of any product feature specifically marketed as agent-delegated compliance preparation. missing for 10: explicit annual report/Jahresabschluss filing capability, evidence of an actual autonomous agent workflow completing filings end-to-end, and confirmation that human signatures/appointments aren't still required as bottlenecks.

   • [claimed-docs] “Submit a company's details to start its tax registration. An ELSTER XML document will be generated and sent the tax office”
   • [claimed-docs] “POST https://api.beglaubigt.de/v1/trade-registration”
   • [claimed-docs] “Real-time updates: Get instant notifications when notarization events are completed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `appointment.completed` event is automatically triggered when the notary appointment date has passed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Wir übernehmen die Pflichtmeldungen nach Gründung: Transparenzregister-Eintrag, Gewerbeanmeldung und Anmeldung beim Finanzamt.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Doc api

1. ai-native userHave an agent draft an NDA and route it for signature end-to-end via the product's API or MCP server

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Clerky—none0/10

   Clerky's Partner API and MCP server are real and documented, but the API explicitly states it 'currently supports Delaware C-Corporation formations' only, and the MCP server tools are scoped to Clerky's startup-formation document sets (cap tables, safes, stock plans) — there is no evidence of NDA drafting or NDA e-signature routing via either channel.

   • [claimed-docs] “# Introduction The Clerky Partner API lets partners bring a Clerky-powered formation workflow into their own product. It currently supports …”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Lifecycle A [document set][document-sets] moves through four partner-facing steps: create it, collect [form][forms] values, submit those v…”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Clerky MCP Server Clerky works with AI assistants that support remote [Model Context Protocol (MCP)](https://modelcontextprotocol.io/docs/…”
   • [probe] “PROBE remote MCP initialize (no token): {"error": "invalid_token", "error_description": "Authentication required"} HTTP 401 — live OAuth-gat…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   Beglaubigt.de's docs show a notarization API for submitting existing documents, managing signers, and detecting signature fields, but there is no evidence of AI drafting of contract content (e.g., an NDA) nor of any MCP server or agent-facing interface — only a REST API for notarization/incorporation/translation workflows. The story's core capabilities (AI drafting + MCP server) are unevidenced.

   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”
   • [claimed-docs] “Signature and location/date fields will be automatically identified across the entire document using AI-powered detection.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Real-time updates: Get instant notifications when notarization events are completed.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.beglaubigt.de/openapi.json, https://docs.beglaubigt.de/swagger.json, https://docs.begla…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. developerGenerate, populate, and send legal documents programmatically through a documented API

   weight 3 · round to Beglaubigt.de
   Clerky~partialprobed5/10

   Clerky publishes a documented Partner API with concrete lifecycle steps (create document set, GET forms with json_schema, POST values, poll state) covering document generation and population (clerky-docs-19, clerky-docs-20). However, the API currently only supports Delaware C-Corp formations, OAuth-based authentication is explicitly stated as 'coming soon' rather than live (clerky-docs-21), and 'sending' is really 'user signs on Clerky' rather than a programmatic send step, so the story is only partially realized in production. Missing for 10: live/production authentication for partners, broader document-type coverage beyond formations, and independent/hands-on evidence of a working end-to-end integration.

   • [claimed-docs] “# Introduction The Clerky Partner API lets partners bring a Clerky-powered formation workflow into their own product. It currently supports …”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Lifecycle A [document set][document-sets] moves through four partner-facing steps: create it, collect [form][forms] values, submit those v…”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Authentication The Clerky Partner API will use OAuth 2.0 bearer tokens. OAuth-based access is coming soon; client registration, URLs, scop…”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://developers.clerky.com/llms.txt - [Lifecycle](https://developers.clerky.com/getting-started/lifecycle/ind…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de✓fullprobed7/10

   Documentation shows concrete POST endpoints for creating incorporation, notarization, translation, tax-registration, and trade-registration requests, plus GET endpoints and webhook events, indicating a genuine programmatic API for populating/sending legal documents. However, missing for 10: a discoverable OpenAPI/Swagger spec (probe found all candidate spec URLs 404), independent developer corroboration or third-party usage reports, and detail on request/response schemas or SDKs.

   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates an incorporation request for a company in Germany such as a GmbH or UG, including company details, shareholders, and d…”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint retrieves the details of an incorporation”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a translation request for one or multiple documents.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Submit a company's details to start its tax registration. An ELSTER XML document will be generated and sent the tax office”
   • [claimed-docs] “POST https://api.beglaubigt.de/v1/trade-registration”
   • [claimed-docs] “Real-time updates: Get instant notifications when notarization events are completed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `appointment.completed` event is automatically triggered when the notary appointment date has passed.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.beglaubigt.de/openapi.json, https://docs.beglaubigt.de/swagger.json, https://docs.begla…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Governance

1. legal-ops leadPrepare board consents and resolutions and collect approvals online

   weight 2 · round to Clerky
   Clerky~partialcommunity5/10

   Clerky's docs describe document-set collaboration, inviting co-founders/attorneys to review and comment in real-time, and issuing stock/options (which typically requires board approval) — these features generally support drafting and collecting sign-off on corporate paperwork online. However, no evidence explicitly names 'board consents' or 'resolutions' as a document type or confirms an approval-workflow specifically for board actions. Missing for 10: explicit mention of board consent/resolution templates, a dedicated approval/e-signature workflow for board members, and independent confirmation that board-level approvals are collected through the platform.

   • [claimed-docs] “Issue safes or convertible notes. Hire employees, consultants, and advisors, and issue stock or stock options as equity compensation.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Our software makes it easy to invite other people to collaborate on a document set, in real-time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Our software makes it easy to invite other people to collaborate on a document set, in real-time. Rest easy knowing everyone is looking at t…”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can easily loop in your attorney to have them review and comment on the information you're entering.”
   • [claimed-docs] “We've built features that let you easily assign tasks to co-founders and work on everything together.”
   • [community] “Clerky gives me management tools (including the post-incorporation package: Fundraising, Hiring and Maintenance) although this does not give…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de~partialclaimed3/10

   Beglaubigt.de offers generic document submission, signer management, and notarization workflows (with signature-field auto-detection and appointment/event webhooks) that could technically be applied to notarize a board resolution, but there is no evidence of board-consent/resolution templates, multi-party approval tracking, or governance-specific workflows tailored to equity fundraising. Missing for 10: dedicated board-resolution/consent templates, multi-signer approval sequencing/voting, and any governance-specific use case documentation.

   • [claimed-docs] “businesses can submit documents, manage signers, and automate notarization workflows, or incorporate companies in Germany”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”
   • [claimed-docs] “Signature and location/date fields will be automatically identified across the entire document using AI-powered detection.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Real-time updates: Get instant notifications when notarization events are completed.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Hiring

1. legal-ops leadRun hiring and equity paperwork — offer letters, confidentiality/IP agreements, and option grants — through the platform

   weight 2 · round to Clerky
   Clerky✓fullcommunity8/10

   Clerky's own product docs explicitly cover hiring paperwork (offer/hiring workflows), confidentiality/IP agreements implied via founder/employee onboarding docs, and equity issuance (stock, stock options, safes, convertible notes) via a stock plan, plus attorney oversight/collaboration features for legal-ops review. Community reviews corroborate real-world use of the hiring/fundraising/maintenance packages. Missing for 10: explicit mention of confidentiality/IP agreement templates by name and independent case studies detailing legal-ops workflows specifically.

   • [claimed-docs] “Issue safes or convertible notes. Hire employees, consultants, and advisors, and issue stock or stock options as equity compensation.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Adopt a stock plan to easily issue restricted stock or stock options to employees, consultants, and advisors.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Forming a startup on Clerky enables access to a legal dashboard that makes it easy to do additional legal paperwork.”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can easily loop in your attorney to have them review and comment on the information you're entering.”
   • [community] “Clerky gives me management tools (including the post-incorporation package: Fundraising, Hiring and Maintenance) although this does not give…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   Beglaubigt.de's documented capabilities cover generic document notarization, translation, incorporation, tax/trade registration, and apostilles for German companies — but no evidence pack item mentions offer letters, confidentiality/IP agreements, or option grants, nor any equity/HR paperwork workflow support. The evidence shows only signature-field detection on arbitrary uploaded documents, which is not the same as a legal-ops equity/hiring document suite.

   • [claimed-docs] “businesses can submit documents, manage signers, and automate notarization workflows, or incorporate companies in Germany”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”
   • [claimed-docs] “Signature and location/date fields will be automatically identified across the entire document using AI-powered detection.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Esign

1. founderSend a document for legally binding e-signature to multiple recipients with routing

   weight 3 · round to Clerky
   Clerky~partialclaimed4/10

   Clerky's document sets clearly involve multiple signers (collaborators, attorneys, co-founders) and a signing workflow (clerky-docs-13/17, clerky-docs-19/20), but this is signing within Clerky's own fixed legal document templates rather than a general-purpose 'send any document for signature with custom multi-recipient routing' capability. No evidence describes configurable signing order, roles, or routing logic for recipients. Missing for 10: explicit documentation of routing/sequencing controls, ability to send arbitrary documents (not just Clerky-generated ones) for signature, and independent confirmation of multi-recipient routing behavior.

   • [claimed-docs] “Our software makes it easy to invite other people to collaborate on a document set, in real-time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Our software makes it easy to invite other people to collaborate on a document set, in real-time. Rest easy knowing everyone is looking at t…”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Introduction The Clerky Partner API lets partners bring a Clerky-powered formation workflow into their own product. It currently supports …”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Lifecycle A [document set][document-sets] moves through four partner-facing steps: create it, collect [form][forms] values, submit those v…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de~partialclaimed3/10

   Beglaubigt.de's docs mention submitting documents and managing signers for notarization requests with AI-detected signature fields, which implies some multi-signer capability, but there is no evidence of routing logic (sequential/parallel order, per-recipient roles) for standard e-signature workflows — the platform's core focus is notarization/incorporation, not generic e-signature routing. Missing for 10: explicit routing/order configuration for multiple recipients, confirmation that signatures are 'legally binding e-signatures' rather than tied only to notarization appointments, and any independent corroboration of multi-recipient workflows.

   • [claimed-docs] “businesses can submit documents, manage signers, and automate notarization workflows, or incorporate companies in Germany”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”
   • [claimed-docs] “Signature and location/date fields will be automatically identified across the entire document using AI-powered detection.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Esign embed

1. developerEmbed the signing experience inside my own app or website

   weight 2 · round to Clerky
   Clerky~partialclaimed5/10

   Clerky's Partner API lets a developer create a document set, render forms, and collect data inside their own product, but the docs explicitly state 'Users enter formation information in your product and sign documents on Clerky' — meaning the actual signing step happens on Clerky's own platform rather than being embedded, and OAuth authentication for partners is still listed as 'coming soon' rather than live. missing for 10: evidence of an embeddable signing widget/iframe, live partner OAuth flow, and any third-party confirmation of a working embedded integration.

   • [claimed-docs] “# Introduction The Clerky Partner API lets partners bring a Clerky-powered formation workflow into their own product. It currently supports …”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Lifecycle A [document set][document-sets] moves through four partner-facing steps: create it, collect [form][forms] values, submit those v…”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Authentication The Clerky Partner API will use OAuth 2.0 bearer tokens. OAuth-based access is coming soon; client registration, URLs, scop…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   Beglaubigt.de exposes API endpoints for notarization, translation, incorporation, etc., but there is no evidence of any embeddable widget, iframe, or SDK for embedding a signing UI inside a third-party app or website — the evidence pack only shows backend API calls and webhook events. missing for 10: embeddable signing widget/iframe, front-end SDK or JS component, hosted signing page for embedding, customization/branding options for embedded flow.

   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”
   • [claimed-docs] “Signature and location/date fields will be automatically identified across the entire document using AI-powered detection.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Real-time updates: Get instant notifications when notarization events are completed.”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://docs.beglaubigt.de/llms.txt # Beglaubigt.de API - [Introduction to Beglaubigt.de API](/): Welcome to th…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.beglaubigt.de/openapi.json, https://docs.beglaubigt.de/swagger.json, https://docs.begla…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Esign scale

1. legal-ops leadBulk-send the same document to many recipients at once

   weight 1 · round drawn
   Clerky—none0/10

   Clerky's evidence describes single document-set collaboration, invitations, and signature workflows for specific named parties (co-founders, employees, attorneys) but nothing about bulk-sending one document to many recipients at once, a feature typical of e-signature platforms like DocuSign.

   ⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   Beglaubigt.de's docs describe creating a single notarization/translation/incorporation request and managing signers on that request, but there is no mention of a bulk-send or mass-distribution feature for sending one document to many recipients at once. Missing for 10: any bulk-send/batch-recipient API or UI capability, evidence of multi-recipient campaign sending.

   • [claimed-docs] “businesses can submit documents, manage signers, and automate notarization workflows, or incorporate companies in Germany”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. legal-ops leadSet signing order, automatic reminders, and expirations on outstanding signature requests

   weight 1 · round drawn
   Clerky—none0/10

   No evidence describes signing order, automatic reminders, or expiration settings for signature requests; Clerky's evidence focuses on document collaboration, workspace access, and formation workflows, not e-signature controls of this kind.

   ⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   Beglaubigt.de's docs describe managing signers and notarization/appointment events (e.g., appointment.completed webhooks) but nowhere mention configurable signing order, automatic reminders, or expiration settings on signature requests.

   • [claimed-docs] “businesses can submit documents, manage signers, and automate notarization workflows, or incorporate companies in Germany”
   • [claimed-docs] “Real-time updates: Get instant notifications when notarization events are completed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The `appointment.completed` event is automatically triggered when the notary appointment date has passed.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

1. ai-native userDo everything through the API that I can do in the UI

   weight 2 · round to Beglaubigt.de
   Clerky~partialclaimed4/10

   Clerky has a Partner API but it explicitly 'currently supports Delaware C-Corporation formations' only, a narrow subset of the 40+ products, safes, stock plans, hiring, banking integrations, and legal dashboard features described in the UI docs. OAuth authentication is also still 'coming soon,' meaning the API isn't even fully live yet, and there's no evidence of API coverage for post-formation workflows (safes, convertible notes, hiring, stock issuance, IRS filing, banking apps) that are core UI capabilities. Missing for 10: API coverage for post-incorporation products (safes, hiring, equity issuance, IRS/bank filings), live OAuth access, and evidence of parity across the 40+ advanced products.

   • [claimed-docs] “# Introduction The Clerky Partner API lets partners bring a Clerky-powered formation workflow into their own product. It currently supports …”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Lifecycle A [document set][document-sets] moves through four partner-facing steps: create it, collect [form][forms] values, submit those v…”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Authentication The Clerky Partner API will use OAuth 2.0 bearer tokens. OAuth-based access is coming soon; client registration, URLs, scop…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Issue safes or convertible notes. Hire employees, consultants, and advisors, and issue stock or stock options as equity compensation.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Attorney accounts get access to over 40 advanced products that are not publicly available.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Apply for accounts with the most popular banks for startups. Pre-filled applications make it as easy as possible.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de~partialprobed6/10

   The docs show a genuine API-first design covering the core workflows also available in the UI—incorporation, notarization, translation, tax registration, and trade registration (docs-2,4,6,7,8), plus webhooks/signature verification for automation (docs-9,10,11), and the company explicitly markets itself as the first in Germany to offer incorporation via API (docs-22). However, some UI-surfaced conveniences (free business account bundling, company-name availability check, package selection in docs-17/18) aren't confirmed as API endpoints, and no discoverable OpenAPI/swagger spec was found (probe-2 all 404), making full UI/API parity unverifiable. Missing for 10: confirmed API endpoints for all UI-only conveniences (name check, account bundling), and a published machine-readable OpenAPI spec.

   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates an incorporation request for a company in Germany such as a GmbH or UG, including company details, shareholders, and d…”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a translation request for one or multiple documents.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Submit a company's details to start its tax registration. An ELSTER XML document will be generated and sent the tax office”
   • [claimed-docs] “POST https://api.beglaubigt.de/v1/trade-registration”
   • [claimed-docs] “Real-time updates: Get instant notifications when notarization events are completed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “beglaubigt.de bietet als erstes Unternehmen in Deutschland eine API-Schnittstelle zur UG / GmbH Gründung in Zusammenarbeit mit Notaren.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Prüfe, ob dein Wunschname verfügbar ist – und gründe in wenigen Minuten”
   • [claimed-docs] “Erhalte ein kostenloses Geschäftskonto zu jeder Unternehmensgründung”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://docs.beglaubigt.de/openapi.json, https://docs.beglaubigt.de/swagger.json, https://docs.begla…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userExport all of my data in open formats and leave

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Clerky—none0/10

   No evidence of any bulk data export in open/standard formats (e.g., document download bundles, JSON/CSV exports of legal data) for users to take their data and leave; the Partner API and MCP server are designed for partner integrations/AI assistants working within Clerky, not full data portability/exit. Probes also show no llms.txt/docs export or export-oriented endpoints beyond the legal-workflow API.

   • [claimed-docs] “# Introduction The Clerky Partner API lets partners bring a Clerky-powered formation workflow into their own product. It currently supports …”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Authentication The Clerky Partner API will use OAuth 2.0 bearer tokens. OAuth-based access is coming soon; client registration, URLs, scop…”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://handbooks.clerky.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://handbooks.clerky.com/legal-concepts.md”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://handbooks.clerky.com/openapi.json, https://handbooks.clerky.com/swagger.json, https://handbo…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   Beglaubigt.de is a notarization/incorporation API service, not a data-storage platform, but the story asks whether users can export their own data (documents, records) in open formats and leave — no evidence of any export/download-all-data feature or data portability mechanism appears anywhere in the docs. This is a fair question since users submit sensitive documents and company data that they'd reasonably want to retrieve or migrate away with, so the axis applies, and no evidence of such a capability exists.

   • [claimed-docs] “businesses can submit documents, manage signers, and automate notarization workflows, or incorporate companies in Germany”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a notarization request for a document”
   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates a translation request for one or multiple documents.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

1. ai-native userControl data retention and deletion

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Clerky—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack addresses data retention policies, export, or deletion controls for user data within Clerky; the docs focus on formation, collaboration, and MCP/API features, none of which mention retention or deletion. Missing for 10: any documentation of data retention periods, deletion requests, or export/erasure controls.

   ⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de—none0/10

   No evidence of any data retention controls, deletion endpoints, or privacy/data lifecycle settings in the docs; the evidence pack covers notarization, incorporation, translation, and webhook features only.

   ⚑ flag

Templates

1. founderAnswer guided questionnaires that fill in legal documents correctly and flag choices that need attorney review

   weight 1 · round to Clerky
   Clerky~partialclaimed6/10

   Clerky's docs show forms with structured fields/json_schema that collect info to fill documents (clerky-docs-19, clerky-docs-20), easy customization of key terms (clerky-docs-11), and the ability to loop in an attorney to review and comment on entered information (clerky-docs-12). However, there is no explicit evidence of a system that automatically flags specific choices as needing attorney review versus a general 'invite attorney' collaboration feature. missing for 10: explicit automated flagging/warning UI for attorney-review-needed choices, independent user account of the questionnaire flow itself, and confirmation the guided form correctly maps answers to legal documents.

   • [claimed-docs] “# Introduction The Clerky Partner API lets partners bring a Clerky-powered formation workflow into their own product. It currently supports …”
   • [claimed-docs] “# Lifecycle A [document set][document-sets] moves through four partner-facing steps: create it, collect [form][forms] values, submit those v…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Our software makes it easy to customize the key terms of the legal paperwork you're working on.”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can easily loop in your attorney to have them review and comment on the information you're entering.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Our software makes it easy to invite other people to collaborate on a document set, in real-time.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Beglaubigt.de~partialclaimed3/10

   There is evidence of structured data submission for incorporation (company details, shareholders, directors) and a digital tax registration questionnaire submitted via ELSTER, which resembles guided form-filling, but nothing describes a questionnaire flow that validates legal choices or flags items requiring attorney review — the process instead routes to real notaries for the legal check, not an in-app flagging mechanism. Missing for 10: evidence of a structured Q&A/questionnaire UI, logic that flags legally risky choices, and any attorney-review escalation feature.

   • [claimed-docs] “This endpoint creates an incorporation request for a company in Germany such as a GmbH or UG, including company details, shareholders, and d…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Der Fragebogen zur steuerlichen Erfassung wird vollständig digital ausgefüllt und über die offizielle ELSTER-Schnittstelle an das Finanzamt …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Company incorporation (UG, GmbH, Holding structures)”

   proof ↗⚑ flag