Highlighting text without using @placeholder


I am looking for a way to highlight Text without using @placeholder. The reason for this is that I have my @placeholder styled to include square [brackets] by default:

However, I sometimes want to put a highlighted bracket at the start and end of a longer passage, without highlighting the entire passage (because I cannot highlight §references).

I have started using @placeholder(“|”), but this not as visually clear where a highlight starts and ends:

I know I could style @placeholder to not include any brackets. I am trying to avoid this, because it would mean adding hundreds of brackets manually.

Is there a second way to highlight text that does not use @placeholder ?

Thanks so much!

Hi Kai,

You have a few options at this moment:

  1. Use an alert, through double exclamation marks. Unfortunately, the highlight is in a different color.

  1. Set the styling to not use the square brackets, and create yourself an external snippet (e.g., called “highlight”) with the following content:…

… which you can then invoke as follows for each of your placeholders:


  1. Wait for a few days until we add a @highlight special function that uses the highlight-color of the styling, but does not include any of the brackets.

Option 2 is great to keep in mind for more advanced styling, maybe with different types of brackets.

However, I really like option 3! Thanks so much!

Document: #1018577

In preparation for @highlight, I have started implementing global snippets around those terms I want to style as single brackets.

For example, in the below screenshot, for styling:

[Schedule R2]

I am using


with @#LL and @#RR intended to become @highlight(“[”) and @highlight(“]”), respectively.

Do you have any idea why the preview displays "{:class “deliberate”,… as seen above? @#LL and @#RR do not have any additional code, from what I can tell:


It only appeared today, I have been using these global snippets for over a week. Exporting the document works as expected:


Dear @mtruyens ,

I could not get @highlight to work - is this still in the pipeline?


Apologies for the delay, the development team is focused on this weekend’s major upgrade of ClauseBuddy. Smaller requests such as the one above will be handled as from next week.

Hi Kai,

We just updated the software — there’s now a @highlight special function (takes the color of the placeholder’s styling), @highlight-red (always red background), @highlight-green and @highlight-yellow.

Apologies for the delay, but I hope you find it useful!


1 Like

Dear Maarten,

I am finding this so useful I am now running out of colors! Even using !! !! to get a purple highlight, I wish there were even more.

Any chance you could expand upon the list of supported colors in the future?

Thanks again!

We deliberately selected the colors that are practically used in everyday documents. Which other colour would you like besides purple?

Reference Q&A: #1026350

In our drafts, certain thematic choices each get their own color, e.g.:


This means that when going through the text, you can see via color markings which text belongs to which choice:


I know that these are the kinds of choices usually made by a user in the Q&A. However, we often run into situations where some information is not final. For these cases, I have set up my questions to allow “Yes/No/Unsure”. When selecting “Unsure”, I want to show the end user both possible text options and highlight them to indicate that this still needs review.

Up until now, I just used yellow everywhere, but I have no started giving each major choice of a document its own, distinct color. This means if a user selects 3x “Unsure” they can still keep the choices apart down the line whilst working with the document.

For this use-case, I would ask that you include the standard word highlight colors. Red screams “danger”, so whilst I am using it for now I would like to phase it out for normal drafting.


Maybe, instead of creating a bunch of different special functions, @highlight could get an optional parameter to accept either color names or even hex codes: so @highlight(“text”, ffffff) or @highlight(“text”, white) would highlight in white.

Thanks for considering - I was happy with yellow only until I got 4 colors, and now I want them all!


Hi Kai, we’ll add a few colours then.

In the meantime, perhaps you should have a look at the @cc-checkbox, @cc-combobox, etc. These can often help in situations where the output document is not yet completey final.

Alternatively, you may want to have a look at the “Legal Guides” functionality of ClauseBuddy (Introduction - ClauseBuddy Help), which allows you to easily create different versions of the same final clause, which will automatically get shown in ClauseBuddy (and can then be inserted with the click of a button) when the user would position his cursor on the not-yet-final clause within the DOCX file.

Of course, you can also create an intelligent clause in Clause9 (with all the variations inside that you want) and then expose that one in ClauseBuddy — or even combine it with the Legal Guides functionality. ClauseBuddy should even pick up the datafields & conceptlabels that were selected by the user in the Q&A before outputting to DOCX, so the intelligent clause can pick up where the initial document left off.

Hi Kai,

As from tomorrow, now also cyan, pink, blue and light grey!

Thanks so much, this is wonderful!

Could someone from the team still update the documentation? I wanted to reference it an realized the new colors are still missing.


One of the next days we will switch to another documentation system (see https://help.clause9.com for a sneak peek, but it’s not ready yet!), hence the reason why we’re a bit behind updating the old site!

Hi Maarten,

from what I can tell, “Ask” uses some kind of LLM that has access to all your documentation, and the search seems to take some ideas from the old truffle hunt - i.e. also searching for words not next to each other.

This is a really fantastic implementation - do you have a system in place to collect the search queries that users input? Especially those that produce no results could be valuable info in where the “Ask” search does not work well yet.

This is an unexpected change, but I really hope other documentations follow suit.