adversarial-legal-review-enlisted

A red team for a high-stakes deliverable - takes a finished, high-stakes document (a legal opinion, a DD/M&A memo, a court/board submission, a recommendation) and runs an adversarial debate: a builder constructs the strongest version of the thesis, an attacker tears it apart with counter-arguments and contrary authority, a synthesizer reconciles, a verifier does a final check. Goal: find the weakness BEFORE your opponent, the court, or the client does. Cost-gated - for high-stakes work only, not every query (token-expensive). Use when: "attack this opinion", "red team", "devil's advocate for this document", "find the weaknesses", "stress-test the argument", "what will the other side say", "pre-mortem", "defend this thesis", "adversarial review", verifying a high-stakes deliverable before it goes out. English counterpart of adversarial-legal-review-pl (this version drops the Polish case-law layer and is jurisdiction-agnostic).
matematicsolutions/awesome-matematic-skills-en · ★ 0 · Code & Development · score 76

Install: claude install-skill matematicsolutions/awesome-matematic-skills-en

# Adversarial Legal Review (English) - a red team for a high-stakes deliverable ## Philosophy **Better your own agent finds the weakness in your thesis than your opponent finds it in the hearing.** A single LLM pass produces an argument that sounds confident - because the model is trained to sound confident. That is an illusion of competence. The real value of an expert is to foresee the counter-argument, the contrary authority, and the gap in reasoning before the other side does. This skill institutionalises the adversarial move: one agent defends, one attacks, one reconciles, one verifies. This is NOT writing a deliverable from scratch. It is a stress-test of a finished deliverable. ## Cost gate (read BEFORE running) The full cycle is token-expensive. Run it **only for high-stakes** work: | Run (high-stakes) | Do NOT run (routine) | |---|---| | A legal opinion going to a client | An internal note | | Due diligence / an M&A memo | A summary of a judgment | | A court submission before a deadline | A working draft | | A recommendation to a board | FAQ, marketing content | | A position carrying material financial or reputational risk | A routine query | If the matter is not high-stakes, say so plainly and offer an ordinary single-pass review instead of the full debate. Do not burn tokens on routine work. ## Workflow (4 roles + verification) Each role is a separate pass with a clean mandate. Pseudonymise the input (e.g. with a humaniser/anonymiser step) if the document