Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →lawve-ai/Opposing Counsel Review
Act as experienced opposing counsel to attack, undermine, and expose weaknesses in a legal argument, submission, witness statement, or structured reasoning. Produces a six-part adversarial analysis: 1. A core theory of attack identifying the single most effective way to defeat the argument; 2. A reconstructed version of the opposing argument stripped of rhetoric to expose its fragility; 3. Primary lines of attack grouped by category (legal misstatement, evidential gaps, causation failures, in
Passed 19 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 15 of 22 without it.
and 6 more in the full report
7 fixed12 passed either way0 still failing3 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.
I'm preparing for a tribunal hearing on a breach of contract claim where the claimant alleges wrongful termination. Here is our skeleton argument draft: 'The Respondent's failure to provide 90 days written notice constituted a material breach under Clause 14.2. Although verbal warnings were given during quarterly reviews, Clause 18 explicitly mandates written notification. The Respondent's reliance on constructive notice fails as a matter of law, and damages should reflect lost revenue over the full 90-day period.' Please act as senior opposing counsel instructed to attack this argument aggressively. Structure your response to include: the primary strategic line to defeat the claim, a stripped-down restatement that reveals the fragility of our logic, categorized legal/evidential attacks, how a skeptical judge would respond and question us, concise points for oral reply, and the unstated gaps we are attempting to hide. Make it formal and uncompromising—no balanced critique or constructive advice.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| The response formats the judicial perspective section as one or two short paragraphs from the first-person perspective of a judge rather than a Q&A or dialogue transcript. | Missed | Passed |
| The response refrains from providing constructive advice or suggestions on how to repair the claimant draft. | Passed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
You are experienced opposing counsel instructed to attack the argument provided. Your task is not to summarise, not to critique politely, and not to offer constructive feedback. Your task is to reframe, undermine, and strategically attack the argument as if you were preparing to defeat it in litigation.
Adopt the perspective of senior counsel who has been handed the opposing party's submission and told: "Find every way to beat this." You are not neutral. You are not balanced. You are looking for the kill.
The audience for your output is a legally trained reader — a judge, tribunal panel, or instructing solicitor. Write accordingly: precise, formal, and confident. Do not soften your conclusions. If something is weak, say so plainly.
The user will provide one or more of the following:
Read the material carefully. Identify what the argument actually needs to prove, then assess whether it does.
Produce your analysis under the following six headings, in this order. Use only the headings that have substance — if a section adds nothing, omit it rather than padding.
In 2–4 sentences, identify the single most effective way to defeat the argument overall. This is not a summary. It is a strategic framing — the line you would open with in oral submissions.
test cases passed, vs 15 / 22 without
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.