Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →borghei/legal-red-team
Adversarial verification for AI-generated legal content.
Passed 17 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 10 of 22 without it.
and 6 more in the full report
7 fixed10 passed either way5 still failing0 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 7 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
What command-line python script from the checking tools should be executed to run a first-pass automated check on a draft legal document file named `contract_summary.txt` to extract claims and flag potential hallucination patterns?
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Recommends executing legal_fact_checker.py with the input document parameter. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
⚠️ EXPERIMENTAL — This skill is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It does NOT constitute legal advice. All responsibility for usage rests with the user. Consult qualified legal professionals before acting on any output.
Production-ready adversarial verification framework for AI-generated legal content. Covers factual accuracy, citation validation, arithmetic checking, speculation detection, and distribution readiness scoring.
Every AI-generated legal document must be checked across 6 categories.
| # | Category | What to Check | Red Flags |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Factual Accuracy | Dates, references, numbers, entity names, timelines | Wrong effective dates, confused entity names, incorrect amounts |
| 2 | Legal Authority Citations | Primary/secondary sources, format, hierarchy, currency | Non-existent articles, wrong section numbers, outdated citations |
| 3 | Arithmetic Validation | Timelines, percentages, financial calculations, deadlines | Date math errors, percentage miscalculations, compounding mistakes |
| 4 | Source Verification | Verifiable claims, official sources, cross-referencing | Unverifiable assertions stated as fact, single-source claims |
| 5 | Speculation Detection | Opinion vs fact, uncertainty language, predictive claims | Predictions stated as certainty, guidance treated as binding law |
| 6 | Disclaimer Adequacy | Legal advice disclaimers, jurisdiction, date, professional consultation | Missing disclaimers, overly broad claims, no jurisdiction limits |
test cases passed, vs 10 / 22 without
Published skills whose descriptions closely match this one, with their headline benchmark lift.
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.