The first offer letter I sent had a typo in the salary and forgot the at-will clause. The candidate caught the typo; nobody caught the missing clause until a lawyer did, months later, on a different letter. That's the thing about offer letters: they're 90% boilerplate and 10% the part that matters, and the 10% is easy to drop when you're moving fast.

So I built a generator that treats the letter as a checklist with a narrative on top.

Standard clauses are the part you shouldn't improvise

There's a set of clauses almost every offer needs: role, compensation, start date, contingencies (background check, references, signed paperwork), and the jurisdictional bits about at-will or notice. The generator lays these out from structured inputs — role, comp, start date — so the skeleton is always complete. The human fills in the specifics; the tool makes sure the skeleton exists.

The jurisdiction note is the one I'd hand to a professional rather than trust blindly. Employment law differs by place in ways a template can't fully capture, so the generator adds a note pointing at where to check, not a promise that the letter is correct everywhere. I'd rather under-claim and point to review than fake completeness.

Contingencies are where letters actually differ

Two offers can have identical salary and wildly different risk because of contingencies: one is contingent on a clean background check, another on a visa, another on a signed NDA. The generator makes you name these explicitly instead of burying them. A contingency you forgot to list is a contingency you can't enforce, and "we assumed" is not a clause.

What it doesn't do is negotiate. It drafts from what you enter. If you're unsure whether a contingency is reasonable or enforceable, that's a lawyer conversation, not a regenerate click.

What shipping it taught me

The role-and-comp summary at the top sounds cosmetic but it's the most-read part — candidates skim it before the clauses. Getting it right and consistent with the body prevents the classic error of a summary that says one number and a clause that says another. OfferLetter derives both from the same input, so they can't disagree.

If you build something similar, derive everything from one source of truth. The bugs in document generators are almost always two fields that should match and don't.

The limit

It's a drafting tool, not legal advice. The standard clauses are a starting structure; whether they fit your situation and jurisdiction is a review you owe a professional. I've kept the copy honest that this produces a draft, not a lawyer-approved letter, and the jurisdiction note is a pointer, not a guarantee.

When I send offers I run them through OfferLetter so the clause skeleton is never the thing I forget. The role-and-comp summary and the body both come from one input, which is the only reason they stay consistent. The jurisdiction note is a pointer, not a promise, and I'd rather under-claim than fake completeness.

FAQ

What goes into a generated letter?
A role and compensation summary, the standard clauses, start date with any contingencies, and a jurisdiction note pointing at where to verify.

Does it handle equity or bonuses?
You can include comp structure in the summary. The generator drafts from what you enter; it doesn't advise on what's fair or standard.

Is the letter legally valid as written?
It's a draft. The clauses are a common structure, but fit to your jurisdiction and situation needs a human or legal review.

Why a jurisdiction note instead of just writing it correctly?
Employment law varies by place in ways a template can't cover. The note tells you where to check rather than pretending the letter is correct everywhere.