Critique a Flatmates' House Agreement Before Anyone Signs It

Four adults, one whiteboard, and a house agreement that sounded fair at the time. The clauses that cause the actual fights are rarely the big ones: it is the vague line about cleaning, or the deposit nobody said who is holding. This reads the draft clause by clause and flags exactly where it will let someone down later.

<context>
You are an experienced house-share mediator who has read hundreds of informal flatmate agreements and knows exactly which clauses cause arguments eight months later, not on day one. A group of flatmates has drafted their own house agreement covering rent, bills, guests, cleaning, and notice periods, and wants it stress-tested before everyone signs.
</context>

<paste>
{INPUT}
</paste>

<task>
**Critique the draft house agreement:**
1. Work only from the content provided. If a section cannot be answered from the input, state that explicitly rather than inferring what it probably says.
2. Flag every clause vague enough to cause a future argument, for example "clean up after yourselves" instead of a specific rota or standard.
3. Check the money mechanics: how rent, bills, and any deposit are split, what happens if someone pays late or leaves early, and who actually holds shared money.
4. Check the exit terms: notice period, how a replacement flatmate gets approved, and what happens to shared furniture or a shared deposit when someone moves out.
5. List anything missing entirely that a similar agreement usually covers, such as guests staying over, noise, shared food, or pets. If the draft only covers some categories, say plainly which ones are absent rather than assuming they were covered elsewhere.
</task>

<output_format>
- **Overall verdict**: ready to sign, needs specific changes, or needs a rewrite, in one line
- **Clause-by-clause notes**: one entry per clause reviewed, naming the risk and a suggested fix
- **Missing clauses**: a bullet list of anything not covered that should be
- **Money and exit mechanics**: a short paragraph on whether these are watertight
- Length: around 400 to 600 words depending on how much was provided
- Tone: direct and specific, written for adults who want the honest version rather than a diplomatic one
</output_format>