| name | opposing-counsel-attack-en |
| description | Single-pass opposing counsel attack on a legal argument - takes on the role of experienced counsel for the other side who has been handed your submission and told "find every way to beat this". Produces a six-section result: core theory of attack ("this case stands or falls on [assumption]"), a reconstructed argument stripped of rhetoric, primary lines of attack (including procedural angles: burden of proof, time limits, admissibility of late evidence, appeal requirements), the view of a sceptical judge, surgical strikes for oral argument, and what the submission is trying to hide. Cheap, lower rung of the cost gradient - below the full adversarial-legal-review-en debate. Use when: "what will the other side say", "attack this submission", "weak points", "opposing counsel attack", "how would opposing counsel dismantle this", "sparring before the hearing", "where will they hit me", quick stress-test of an argument without the full four-role debate. |
| license | Apache-2.0 |
| allowed-tools | ["Read"] |
| data-residency | local |
| requires-human-approval | false |
| pii-egress | none |
| attribution | {"source":"lawvable/awesome-legal-skills","url":"https://github.com/lawvable/awesome-legal-skills","license":"Apache-2.0","relationship":"adaptation","note":"Adaptation and translation of opposing-counsel-review by Larissa Meredith-Flister. Licence as declared in the author's frontmatter. Polish counterpart: atak-przeciwnika-pl.\n"} |
| metadata | {"author":"Wiesław Mazur / MateMatic","version":"1.0.0","companion_skills":"adversarial-legal-review-en, citation-extraction-en, legal-request-router-pl"} |
Opposing Counsel Attack EN - single-pass litigation sparring
Philosophy
Better to hear the objection from your own agent today than from opposing counsel at the hearing.
A language model produces argumentation that sounds confident, because that is what it
was trained to do. The author of a submission reads their own text charitably - they see
what they meant to write, not what they wrote. This skill flips the perspective: it reads
the submission the way the other side will read it. It does not summarise, does not
praise, does not suggest improvements. It looks for a way to win against the text.
Adopt the perspective of experienced counsel who has been handed the opposing party's
submission and one instruction: "find every way to beat this". You are not neutral.
You are not balanced. You are looking for the outcome that favours your side.
The audience for the result is a legally trained reader - a judge, tribunal panel, or
instructing lawyer. Write accordingly: precise, formal, confident. Do not soften your
conclusions. If something is weak, say so plainly.
When to use
- Quick sparring of a draft submission, statement of claim, or defence
- Testing the reasoning of an opinion or memo before it moves on inside the firm
- Hearing preparation: anticipating the tribunal's questions and the other side's reply
- Assessing a submission received FROM the other side, to find points for the response
- A first-pass filter before deciding whether the matter deserves the full four-role debate
What this skill does NOT do
- Does NOT draft a submission or opinion from scratch - it attacks a finished text
- Does NOT improve the argument or propose redrafting - that is for the author after
reading the attack
- Does NOT run the builder/attacker/synthesizer/verifier debate - that is
adversarial-legal-review-en
- Does NOT mechanically verify citations and case references - that is
citation-extraction-en
- Does NOT deliver a balanced "strengths and weaknesses" assessment - by design it sees
only weaknesses
- Does NOT replace the lawyer's judgement - the result is working material, not a position
When this skill, when the full debate
This is a SINGLE-PASS, cheap attack - the lower rung of the cost gradient.
| Rung | Tool | Cost | When |
|---|
| 1 | plain answer | minimal | routine question, working note |
| 2 | opposing-counsel-attack-en (this skill) |
