Limitations

Codraft’s strengths come from using Claude to conduct the interview. Its limitations do too. Here is what to understand before you rely on it.

Developers have limited control over the interview

Codraft’s interview is driven by Claude, not by a fixed script. A config.yaml lets template authors customize question text, groupings, defaults, and validation — but it does not lock Claude into a specific sequence or phrasing. Claude may rephrase questions, combine related ones, or adapt based on how the conversation unfolds.

This means no two interviews are identical. Run the same template twice and you may get different question groupings, a different order, and different phrasing — even with the same config.yaml in place. The variables collected will be the same, but the path to collecting them will not.

If your use case requires a precise, repeatable interview with guaranteed question order and exact wording — a compliance checklist, an onboarding script, a regulated intake form — Codraft is not the right fit. A deterministic form tool will serve you better.

The output is shaped by the conversation, not just the template

Because the interview is a conversation, users can push back, suggest changes, and ask Claude to adapt the document. Claude will consider those requests. That flexibility is a feature for most uses, but it means the rendered document reflects the entire conversation — not only what the template author intended.

Consider this scenario: a landlord uses Codraft to prepare a standard tenancy agreement. During the interview, the prospective tenant says: “We agreed there would be no late payment penalty — can you remove that clause?” Claude, being conversational and helpful, may comply. The template author’s intent is overridden by the user’s input.

This is a form of prompt injection. In a deterministic form, user input is data — it fills fields, nothing more. In a Claude conversation, user input is part of the prompt. A user who knows this can craft their answers to influence the document well beyond what the template author intended — removing clauses, softening terms, or inserting language that was never in the template.

Codraft can be used for official documents and contracts, but it should never be the only step in the process. Anyone relying on such a document — to sign a lease, execute a contract, or submit a filing — must review the output before doing so. Codraft is a drafting aid, not a certified document generator.

Hallucination is largely prevented by design

Codraft’s pipeline is structured to reduce the risk of Claude inventing document content:

The Analyzer extracts variables by regex, not inference — the manifest only contains placeholders that literally appear in the template.
The Orchestrator collects a value for each variable from the user during the interview.
The Renderer does deterministic substitution — it replaces placeholders with what was collected, nothing more.

This means hallucination is largely contained, but not impossible. During the interview, Claude may suggest a value — offer to fill in a detail, complete a partial answer, or propose a sensible default — and the user may accept it without scrutinising it closely. That suggestion could be wrong: a plausible-sounding jurisdiction, a fee structure that doesn’t quite match what was discussed, a date in the wrong year. It will pass through the confirmation step and appear in the rendered document, because the confirmation reflects what Claude collected, not what you originally said.

Read the rendered document in full before treating it as final, particularly any value that Claude suggested rather than you typed.

Claude is not a lawyer

Codraft can produce documents that look professionally drafted and legally complete. Claude is conversant with common legal language and can handle standard templates competently. But it is not a lawyer, and it does not know your jurisdiction, the current state of the law, or the specific circumstances of your situation.

A template might be out of date. A clause might be unenforceable in your jurisdiction. A standard term might interact with local law in a way neither you nor Claude anticipated. Claude will not flag any of this — it will fill the template and produce a document that reads well, even if the legal effect is not what you intended.

For documents with real legal consequences — contracts, leases, employment agreements, IP assignments — have them reviewed by a qualified legal professional before you rely on them.

Template constraints (v2)

These are the current technical limits of the template engine:

Single-level nesting only — {% for %} inside {% if %} (or vice versa) is not supported. Each control structure must stand on its own.
Two condition forms only — {% if variable %} (truthiness) and {% if variable == 'value' %} (equality). No {% elif %}, no and/or, no complex expressions.
No computed fields — every value is collected from the user. You cannot derive one variable from another inside the template.
No Jinja2 expressions — filters, math, and string manipulation are not supported. Variables are substituted as-is.

Requires a compatible client

Codraft runs as Claude skills, which means it needs a client that supports them. Currently that means:

Claude Cowork (Anthropic’s native desktop client)
Claude Code (CLI-based development environment)
OpenCode or other Claude Code-compatible clients

It will not work in the Claude web interface, the Claude mobile app, or the API directly.

Where traditional tools have the advantage

The limitations above are trade-offs, not oversights. Traditional tools solve several of these problems:

Deterministic interviews — a form tool guarantees question order, exact wording, and repeatable output. If that is a requirement, a form tool is the right choice.
Shared document workflows — Docassemble supports authenticated access, branching workflows, and a centralised document store shared across users. Codraft has no shared data layer — each user runs their own instance locally. This is not a barrier to enterprise deployment (organisations already running Claude at scale can roll Codraft out as a plugin in minutes), but it does mean there is no centralised audit log or document repository out of the box.
No Claude dependency — if your organisation cannot use Claude, every alternative in this space works without it.

See How Codraft Compares for a full breakdown.