đź§ Agentic Marketplace: AI-Powered Trust for Digital Deals
🚀 Inspiration
Modern marketplaces make it easy to connect buyers and suppliers—but trust remains a major gap. Deals often rely on fragmented communication, unverifiable updates, and weak enforcement of contracts. This leads to disputes, fraud, and uncertainty.
We were inspired to solve a simple but powerful problem:
What if every deal had built-in intelligence to verify actions, track progress, and enforce trust automatically?
That idea led us to build an AI-powered marketplace pipeline where contracts aren’t just static documents—they’re actively analyzed, monitored, and enforced.
🛠️ What We Built
We built a 5-stage deal pipeline that ensures a transaction moves safely from start to finish:
Make Contract (AI Risk Scanner)
Suppliers upload or generate contracts. AI analyzes clauses and flags risks (e.g., liability caps, indemnification imbalance).Agreement Loop (Buyer ↔ Supplier)
Buyers can accept or request changes until both parties agree.Deal Execution (Evidence Tracking)
Both parties upload real-time updates (text, images) as proof of progress.AI Analysis
AI evaluates the full deal:- Contract compliance
- Timeline adherence
- Evidence consistency
- Contract compliance
It produces:
- Scores for both parties
- Risk findings
- A final verdict
- Dispute Window (Escrow Protection)
Parties can dispute within 24 hours before escrow is released.
⚙️ How We Built It
đź§© Tech Stack
- Frontend: Next.js (App Router), React, Tailwind CSS
- Backend: Next.js API Routes
- Database & Storage: Supabase
- AI Model: Gemma 4 (via Google Generative AI API)
- File Parsing:
pdftotextfor robust PDF extraction
đź§ AI Pipeline
We built a structured AI pipeline instead of relying on raw responses:
- Extract contract text from PDFs
- Construct a strict prompt enforcing JSON output
- Parse AI output using:
- Marker-based extraction (
FINAL_JSON:) - Fallback scanning for valid JSON blocks
- Marker-based extraction (
- Validate schema before sending to frontend
📊 Scoring Logic
AI evaluates performance based on:
- Delivery time vs contract:
$$ \text{timeliness score} = \frac{\text{expected days}}{\text{actual days}} $$
- Evidence consistency:
$$ \text{confidence} \propto \text{number of verifiable updates} $$
- Contract compliance:
$$ \text{score} = f(\text{violations}, \text{risk clauses}) $$
⚔️ Challenges We Faced
1. Unreliable AI Output
LLMs often returned:
- Multiple JSON objects
- Placeholder data (
"...",{...}) - Partial or truncated responses
👉 Solution:
We built a robust parser that:
- Anchors output using
FINAL_JSON - Scans for multiple JSON blocks
- Validates structure before accepting results
2. PDF Parsing in Node Environments
Libraries like pdfjs and pdf-parse caused:
- ESM import issues
- Missing browser APIs (e.g.,
DOMMatrix)
👉 Solution:
We switched to a system-level approach using pdftotext, which proved far more stable.
3. State Synchronization Across Pipeline
Managing deal stages (contract → execution → AI → disputes) required careful routing and state consistency.
👉 Solution:
We structured the app around dynamic routes and a shared deal ID, ensuring each stage reflects real-time state.
4. AI Determinism vs Flexibility
We needed:
- Consistent outputs (for trust)
- But also meaningful analysis
👉 Solution:
We tuned the model with low temperature and strict schema enforcement.
📚 What We Learned
- AI is powerful—but only when constrained properly
- Parsing AI output is as important as generating it
- Trust systems require both UX and backend rigor
- Real-world reliability > perfect AI responses
🌍 What’s Next
- Highlight risky clauses directly in contracts
- Improve dispute resolution with AI arbitration
- Introduce trust scores across marketplace users
- Scale to real-world B2B marketplaces
đź’ˇ Final Thought
We didn’t just build a marketplace—we built a system where trust is enforced, not assumed.
Log in or sign up for Devpost to join the conversation.