Clerky vs LegalZoom

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

   LegalZoom✓fullprobed8/10

   A direct probe confirms LegalZoom serves a live llms.txt file at /llms.txt with AI-crawler guidance content, showing the site is agent-discoverable. Missing for 10: no visibility into the full content/structure of the llms.txt beyond the header, and no independent community confirmation of its usefulness for agents.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://www.legalzoom.com/llms.txt ################################################################ # :blue_book…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round to Clerky
   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

   LegalZoom—none0/10

   No evidence of any documented public API for LegalZoom; evidence only covers service offerings, pricing, and an llms.txt crawler guidance file, none of which constitute an API for programmatic control. Missing for 10: any API documentation, authentication scheme, endpoints, or SDK enabling programmatic/agentic use.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://www.legalzoom.com/llms.txt ################################################################ # :blue_book…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agentic features

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

   weight 2 · round to LegalZoom
   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

   LegalZoom~partialclaimed2/10

   The only AI-related capability found is 'AI-powered creation of meeting minutes for official record keeping,' which generates content rather than surfacing insights or suggestions derived from the user's own data. There's no evidence of AI-driven analytics, recommendations, or personalized suggestions based on a user's business data. Missing for 10: dashboard-level AI insights, data-driven suggestions/recommendations, any first-party or independent account of AI analyzing user data to produce actionable insights.

   • [claimed-docs] “AI-powered creation of meeting minutes for official record keeping”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userDelegate tasks to a built-in AI assistant inside the product

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Clerky—none0/10

   Evidence shows Clerky exposes an MCP server so external AI assistants (Claude, ChatGPT) can call into Clerky's tools, but this is the reverse of a built-in assistant inside Clerky's own product that a user delegates tasks to. No evidence of any in-app AI assistant/chat feature for delegating formation, hiring, or document tasks.

   • [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

   LegalZoom—none0/10

   Evidence shows only a narrow 'AI-powered meeting minutes' feature and an llms.txt file for crawler guidance, not a built-in assistant that users can delegate broader tasks to. No documentation of a conversational AI agent, task delegation interface, or agentic assistant within the product.

   • [claimed-docs] “AI-powered creation of meeting minutes for official record keeping”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://www.legalzoom.com/llms.txt ################################################################ # :blue_book…”

   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

   LegalZoom—none0/10

   There is no evidence of any natural-language command interface, chat-based operation, or AI agent control surface for LegalZoom's product; the llms.txt probe only indicates AI-crawler guidance for content indexing, not user-facing natural-language operation. missing for 10: any natural-language command interface, chatbot/agent control of the product, API or automation surface, evidence of AI-native operability beyond crawler guidance.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://www.legalzoom.com/llms.txt ################################################################ # :blue_book…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Api quality

1. 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

   LegalZoom—none0/10

   No evidence of an OpenAPI spec, developer API, or machine-readable API documentation anywhere in the evidence pack; only marketing docs, community commentary, and an llms.txt crawler guidance file are present, none of which constitute an API spec.

   ⚑ flag

Compliance

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

   weight 2 · round to LegalZoom
   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

   LegalZoom~partialclaimed5/10

   LegalZoom docs show registered-agent and annual-report services with deadline reminders and real-time compliance status alerts (docs-14, docs-16), which support timely annual report filing, but there's no explicit evidence of franchise tax filing/payment services on the platform. Missing for 10: franchise tax filing/payment capability, evidence of actual on-time filing outcomes, and independent/hands-on corroboration of the annual report filing process working as described.

   • [claimed-docs] “Get an alert as soon as official mail arrives for you—plus, get reminders when annual report deadlines are approaching.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Real-time notifications about your compliance status, upon receipt of data from your state filing office”
   • [claimed-docs] “All paperwork needed to switch RAs completed for you, plus state fees covered”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round to LegalZoom
   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

   LegalZoom~partialclaimed6/10

   LegalZoom's registered agent and annual report services document reminders for annual report deadlines and real-time compliance status notifications, which meets the 'reminders before deadlines' part of the story. However, there's no evidence of a unified compliance calendar view aggregating multiple filing deadlines for legal-ops oversight. Missing for 10: dedicated calendar UI/dashboard listing all upcoming filings, evidence of reminders for filings beyond annual reports (e.g., licenses, permits), and independent confirmation the reminder system works reliably.

   • [claimed-docs] “Get an alert as soon as official mail arrives for you—plus, get reminders when annual report deadlines are approaching.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Real-time notifications about your compliance status, upon receipt of data from your state filing office”
   • [claimed-docs] “A personalized dashboard available to you 24/7”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. founderUse the platform as my registered agent and receive scanned legal mail and service of process digitally

   weight 2 · round to LegalZoom
   Clerky—none0/10

   No evidence anywhere in the pack that Clerky offers registered agent services or digital mail/service-of-process scanning; its documented scope is document generation, e-signature, IRS filings, banking, and API/MCP integrations. Registered agent service is a plausible offering for a startup-formation platform, so absence of evidence yields 'none' rather than 'na'.

   ⚑ flag

   LegalZoom~partialclaimed6/10

   LegalZoom's registered agent service page confirms core RA functionality: alerts when official mail arrives, unlimited cloud storage for documents, and assistance switching agents, which supports the founder-story premise of receiving legal mail digitally. However, there's no explicit documentation confirming scanned copies of service of process specifically or digital delivery mechanics (scan speed, dashboard viewing), and no independent/hands-on corroboration of the mail-forwarding experience. missing for 10: explicit mention of 'service of process' handling, description of scanning/digitization process, independent user reports confirming reliability of mail alerts.

   • [claimed-docs] “All paperwork needed to switch RAs completed for you, plus state fees covered”
   • [claimed-docs] “Get an alert as soon as official mail arrives for you—plus, get reminders when annual report deadlines are approaching.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Unlimited cloud storage for all your business documents”

   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 Clerky
   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

   LegalZoom—none0/10

   LegalZoom offers annual-report reminders, compliance notifications, and registered-agent services, but all evidence points to a human-driven web platform (dashboard, live specialists, attorney consults) with no API, agent integration, or documented way for an autonomous agent to actually execute a filing with minimal human input; the llms.txt probe only shows AI-crawler guidance, not an agentic execution channel.

   • [claimed-docs] “Get an alert as soon as official mail arrives for you—plus, get reminders when annual report deadlines are approaching.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Real-time notifications about your compliance status, upon receipt of data from your state filing office”
   • [claimed-docs] “A personalized dashboard available to you 24/7”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connect with a business or personal services specialist in under two minutes to help get you to the solutions you need.”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://www.legalzoom.com/llms.txt ################################################################ # :blue_book…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Clm agentic

1. ai-native userHave an agent monitor contract renewals and deadlines through the product's API and act before they lapse

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Clerky—none0/10

   Clerky's API and MCP server are scoped to formation document-set workflows (create, fill forms, sign, poll lifecycle state) — there is no evidence of tracking contract renewal dates, deadline alerts, or proactive lapse-prevention actions via the API or MCP tools.

   • [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

   LegalZoom—none0/10

   No evidence of an API for agents to monitor contracts or deadlines; only human-facing dashboard alerts and email/reminder notifications (registered agent alerts, compliance status alerts) are mentioned, with no programmatic access. Missing for 10: any public API/webhook documentation, agent integration examples, or developer-facing endpoints for contract lifecycle monitoring.

   • [claimed-docs] “Get an alert as soon as official mail arrives for you—plus, get reminders when annual report deadlines are approaching.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Real-time notifications about your compliance status, upon receipt of data from your state filing office”
   • [claimed-docs] “A personalized dashboard available to you 24/7”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Clm authoring

1. legal-ops leadDraft, negotiate, and redline contracts in a controlled workflow instead of email attachments

   weight 3 · round to Clerky
   Clerky~partialclaimed4/10

   Clerky offers real-time collaboration, attorney review/comment, customization of key terms, and full audit logging of document set changes, which supports a 'controlled workflow instead of email attachments' for its own formation/equity documents. However, there is no evidence of redlining, track-changes, or multi-round negotiation with external counterparties—Clerky's workflow is field-based data entry and e-signature for standardized startup legal docs, not general contract redlining. Missing for 10: explicit redline/track-changes tooling, version comparison, negotiation cycles with external parties, and support for arbitrary (non-template) contracts.

   • [claimed-docs] “We log every change anyone makes to a document set or workspace, so you can always see who was responsible for what.”
   • [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.”
   • [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] “Our software makes it easy to customize the key terms of the legal paperwork you're working on.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   LegalZoom—none0/10

   Evidence shows LegalZoom offers business formation, registered agent, compliance, and template document services, but nothing about a contract drafting/negotiation/redlining workflow, version control, or collaborative markup replacing email. Missing for 10: contract drafting workflow, redlining/version comparison tools, negotiation collaboration features, audit trail of changes.

   ⚑ flag

Clm repository

1. legal-ops leadStore executed contracts in a searchable repository with key terms and metadata extracted

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Clerky—none0/10

   Clerky is a formation/document-generation tool; evidence covers document sets, activity logs, and collaboration but nothing about a searchable repository of executed contracts with extracted key terms/metadata—no full-text search, term extraction, or metadata tagging is described anywhere in the pack.

   ⚑ flag

   LegalZoom—none0/10

   Evidence shows LegalZoom offers unlimited cloud storage for business documents (legalzoom-docs-15) but nothing about a searchable repository with automated extraction of key contract terms/metadata—no clause extraction, no contract search/filtering, no metadata tagging capability is described anywhere in the evidence pack.

   • [claimed-docs] “Unlimited cloud storage for all your business documents”

   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

   LegalZoom—none0/10

   No evidence of an API or MCP server for drafting/routing NDAs; the evidence pack only covers business-formation product pages, community pricing complaints, and an llms.txt crawler-guidance file—none showing programmatic document drafting or e-signature routing capability. Missing for 10: any API/MCP endpoint, NDA drafting automation, e-signature routing integration.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://www.legalzoom.com/llms.txt ################################################################ # :blue_book…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

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

   weight 3 · round to Clerky
   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

   LegalZoom—none0/10

   No evidence of any developer API, SDK, or programmatic document generation/send capability—only consumer-facing web forms and service descriptions are documented. missing for 10: public API reference, authentication/SDK docs, programmatic document population/send endpoints, developer sandbox or examples.

   ⚑ flag

Fundraising

1. founderGenerate and sign SAFEs or convertible notes on standard terms without drafting from scratch

   weight 3 · round to Clerky
   Clerky✓fullcommunity8/10

   Clerky's core startup product explicitly supports issuing SAFEs and convertible notes on standard forms with customizable key terms, collaborative editing, attorney review, and e-signature—removing the need to draft from scratch. Community feedback corroborates ease of use and frictionless process for founders using Clerky's paperwork workflows. Missing for 10: independent hands-on account of actually generating/signing a SAFE end-to-end and specifics on which standard SAFE variants (YC, pre/post-money) are supported.

   • [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 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.”
   • [community] “Wow, this is great. Props to the Clerky team. If this had existed in 2015 we would have used it, instead we paid a few thousand extra.”
   • [community] “We were among the first companies to use this product at Crowdbotics... the process was almost totally frictionless and Clerky's support was…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   LegalZoom—none0/10

   Evidence pack covers business formation, registered agent, compliance, and bookkeeping services but contains no mention of SAFEs, convertible notes, equity fundraising documents, or investor-facing templates. This is a plausible axis for a legal-document generation service, but no evidence shows LegalZoom supports generating/signing SAFEs or convertible notes.

   ⚑ 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

   LegalZoom—none0/10

   Evidence pack covers business formation, registered agent, annual reports, and general services, but nothing mentions board consents, resolutions, or online e-signature/approval collection workflows for governance actions.

   ⚑ 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

   LegalZoom—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers business formation, registered agent, annual reports, and general legal document access, but contains no mention of offer letters, employee confidentiality/IP assignment agreements, or stock option grant paperwork—the core equity-fundraising/HR-ops artifacts in this story.

   ⚑ 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

   LegalZoom—none0/10

   No evidence pack items mention e-signature functionality, multi-recipient routing, or document signing workflows; all evidence is about business formation, registered agent, and compliance services. Missing for 10: any mention of e-signature feature, multi-recipient routing/workflow, or signing order/audit trail.

   ⚑ flag

Formation

1. founderObtain a federal EIN for my new company through the platform

   weight 2 · round to Clerky
   Clerky✓fullcommunity8/10

   Clerky explicitly advertises completing and submitting IRS forms (including EIN application, a core IRS form for new companies) fully online without fax, done in-house — clerky-docs-5/15. Community evidence corroborates general ease/friction of the incorporation process but doesn't specifically dispute the EIN step. Missing for 10: independent hands-on confirmation specifically of the EIN application step (vs. general process reviews) and detail on turnaround time.

   • [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.”
   • [community] “We were among the first companies to use this product at Crowdbotics... the process was almost totally frictionless and Clerky's support was…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   LegalZoom✓fullclaimed6/10

   LegalZoom's LLC formation package explicitly lists obtaining an EIN as part of the service, used for taxes, banking, and hiring staff. Missing for 10: dedicated EIN service documentation detailing the application process/turnaround, and independent/hands-on confirmation of EIN delivery.

   • [claimed-docs] “An EIN, which is used to file taxes, open bank accounts, and build your staff”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. founderIncorporate a Delaware startup end-to-end online, including the filing, bylaws, and initial board approvals

   weight 3 · round to Clerky
   Clerky✓fullcommunity8/10

   Clerky is purpose-built for online Delaware incorporation, covering formation filing, customizable bylaws/legal documents, board approvals, and post-incorporation paperwork, corroborated by positive hands-on founder accounts of using it for incorporation. missing for 10: independent verification of the full end-to-end filing-to-board-approval flow (vs marketing pages), and a documented step-by-step walkthrough showing bylaws/board consent generation explicitly.

   • [claimed-docs] “Forming a startup on Clerky enables access to a legal dashboard that makes it easy to do additional legal paperwork.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Our software makes it easy to customize the key terms of the legal paperwork you're working on.”
   • [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.”
   • [community] “I used Clerky in 2016. I found them pleasant and easy to work with. Took the time to answer all of my questions. Prices quite reasonable.”
   • [community] “We were among the first companies to use this product at Crowdbotics... the process was almost totally frictionless and Clerky's support was…”
   • [community] “I love Stripe Atlas overall for fast/excellent UX, but Clerky supports PBCs and a higher degree of customization (eg useful for incorporatin…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   LegalZoom~partialcommunity4/10

   LegalZoom's docs confirm it can file corporation formation (S corp/C corp) online with flat fees and error correction guarantees, which covers the core 'filing' part of a Delaware startup incorporation, but there is no evidence of Delaware-specific service, bylaws drafting, or initial board resolutions/approvals being part of the package (those items are only mentioned for LLC operating agreements, not corporations). Community feedback focuses on LLC formation cost complaints, not corporate incorporation completeness. Missing for 10: Delaware-specific incorporation flow, bylaws generation, initial board consent/resolution documents, and independent verification that these are actually delivered.

   • [claimed-docs] “Corporation (S corp or C corp)”
   • [claimed-docs] “Raise funds by appealing to investors who may prefer corporations for the ability to offer stock.”
   • [claimed-docs] “If your filing is rejected or incorrect due to our error, we'll correct it with the government agency at no additional cost to you.”
   • [community] “I am a lawyer. I used Legalzoom to form a 50/50 California LLC in which I am one of the 50% people. The stakes were low, would always be low…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. founderComplete post-incorporation setup — founder stock purchases, IP assignment, and 83(b) elections — with correct standard paperwork

   weight 2 · round to Clerky
   Clerky~partialcommunity7/10

   Clerky's docs confirm founder stock/equity issuance (clerky-docs-9, clerky-docs-16) and completing/submitting IRS forms online (clerky-docs-5, clerky-docs-15), which covers 83(b) elections, and community confirms a post-incorporation 'Maintenance' package (clerky-comm-3). However, IP assignment agreements are not explicitly named in the evidence pack, so full coverage of that specific document isn't directly confirmed. missing for 10: explicit documentation of IP assignment agreement generation, independent verification that 83(b) filings are correctly executed, and hands-on account of the full post-incorporation flow.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use Clerky to complete IRS forms and submit them to the IRS, completely online. No need for a fax machine.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Issue safes or convertible notes. Hire employees, consultants, and advisors, and issue stock or stock options as equity compensation.”
   • [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.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Adopt a stock plan to easily issue restricted stock or stock options to employees, consultants, and advisors.”
   • [community] “Clerky gives me management tools (including the post-incorporation package: Fundraising, Hiring and Maintenance) although this does not give…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   LegalZoom—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers LLC/incorporation filing, registered agent, annual reports, and general legal document services, but contains no mention of founder stock purchase agreements, IP assignment agreements, or 83(b) election filing support — the specific post-incorporation paperwork the story asks about. Nothing in the docs, community, or probe items addresses this startup-specific stock/equity setup workflow.

   ⚑ flag

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

   weight 2 · round to Clerky
   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

   LegalZoom—none0/10

   No evidence of a public API for LegalZoom services at all — only an llms.txt for AI crawling guidance and marketing/docs pages describing UI-based products. Missing for 10: any documented API, API authentication, endpoint coverage of formation/filing/document features, or third-party integration evidence.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://www.legalzoom.com/llms.txt ################################################################ # :blue_book…”

   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

   LegalZoom—none0/10

   No evidence anywhere in the pack of a data export feature, open format export (e.g., CSV/JSON/PDF bulk download), or account/data portability tooling for leaving the platform; evidence only covers business formation services, pricing, and add-ons. Missing for 10: any documented export tool, data portability API, or account closure/data-download workflow.

   ⚑ flag

1. ai-native userPrevent my data from being used to train AI models

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Clerky—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack addresses AI training data usage, opt-out settings, or any privacy policy statement about model training; Clerky's materials focus on legal document workflows, MCP/API integration, and formation services with nothing on this axis.

   ⚑ flag

   LegalZoom—none0/10

   No evidence of an AI-training opt-out or data-use control mechanism anywhere in LegalZoom's docs, marketing, or community discussion; the evidence pack covers business formation services, not privacy/data controls. missing for 10: any privacy policy or settings documentation on AI training opt-out, data usage controls, or user consent mechanisms for AI model training.

   ⚑ 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

   LegalZoom~partialcommunity5/10

   LegalZoom's docs show guided document creation (150+ customizable legal documents, LLC/incorporation forms, operating agreements) and bundled attorney consultations for follow-up questions, implying some review path, but there is no explicit evidence of an in-flow questionnaire mechanism that flags specific answer choices needing attorney review. Community comments (e.g., a lawyer noting operating agreements are not commodities) suggest the templated approach may miss nuanced legal decisions that would warrant human review, without directly disputing the questionnaire's correctness. missing for 10: explicit description of the guided questionnaire UI/logic that flags risky choices, independent verification that flagged items are accurate or attorney-reviewed in real time.

   • [claimed-docs] “An operating agreement, which helps you set entity guidelines and settle disputes”
   • [claimed-docs] “Access 150+ customizable legal documents for 1 year”
   • [claimed-docs] “Unlimited 30-minute attorney consults about new legal topics related to your business for 30 days”
   • [claimed-docs] “Unlimited 30-minute attorney consultations about new legal topics related to your business—30 day subscription included”
   • [community] “I am a lawyer. I used Legalzoom to form a 50/50 California LLC in which I am one of the 50% people. The stakes were low, would always be low…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. founderStart from a library of vetted standard legal templates (NDAs, agreements, policies) instead of hiring counsel for routine documents

   weight 2 · round to LegalZoom
   Clerky~partialcommunity5/10

   Clerky documents show a template-driven system for startup-specific legal paperwork (formation, safes/convertible notes, stock plans, hiring/equity agreements, IRS forms) that lets founders self-serve rather than hire counsel for those documents. However, the evidence never mentions NDAs, general contract templates, or company policy documents, which are explicitly named in the story. Missing for 10: evidence of NDA templates, general business agreement templates, and policy document templates beyond incorporation/equity paperwork.

   • [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] “Use Clerky to complete IRS forms and submit them to the IRS, completely online. No need for a fax machine.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Our software makes it easy to customize the key terms of the legal paperwork you're working on.”
   • [community] “Clerky gives me management tools (including the post-incorporation package: Fundraising, Hiring and Maintenance) although this does not give…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   LegalZoom~partialcommunity6/10

   LegalZoom explicitly offers access to '150+ customizable legal documents' for a year as part of its formation packages, which covers routine business documents like agreements and policies. However, community commentary (a lawyer user) cautions that while basic filings are a commodity, actual document content like operating agreements 'couldn't be more wrong' to assume as commodity, suggesting template quality/customization limits for more complex needs; other users note forms are 'easy enough to fill out yourself' without paid help, undercutting the value-add. Missing for 10: explicit breakdown of NDA/policy-specific templates, evidence of attorney-vetting process behind each template, and independent quality assessment of document library beyond LLC-related bundle mentions.

   • [claimed-docs] “Access 150+ customizable legal documents for 1 year”
   • [claimed-docs] “An operating agreement, which helps you set entity guidelines and settle disputes”
   • [community] “I am a lawyer. I used Legalzoom to form a 50/50 California LLC in which I am one of the 50% people. The stakes were low, would always be low…”
   • [community] “When I was 16, three years ago, I got overcharged by LegalZoom for setting up an LLC. They made it seem more complicated than it is. You can…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag