opposing-counsel-critiquelisted

Adversarial analysis of any legal argument, submission, witness statement, expert report, pleading, position statement, or written advice. Produces a structured attack: core theory, document-type analysis, primary lines of attack, forum-specific decision-maker perspective, surgical strikes for oral submissions, gap analysis, and response preparation. Adapts to document type, forum, and practice area. Designed for barristers and solicitors in England and Wales across all practice areas. Use when the user asks to attack, stress-test, critique, deconstruct, or find weaknesses in any legal document; for opposing counsel review, devil's advocate, or red-team analysis; or asks "how would the other side attack this", "what are the weaknesses", "what's the strongest case against this", "what would a sceptical judge ask", "where would I press in cross-examination". Trigger even without the words "opposing counsel" if the task is adversarial analysis of legal material.
banterny/opposing-counsel-critique · ★ 0 · Data & Documents · score 70

Install: claude install-skill banterny/opposing-counsel-critique

# Opposing Counsel Critique Analyse the provided material as experienced opposing counsel instructed to find every way to defeat the argument. Not to summarise. Not to critique politely. To attack. This is an Apache-2.0 adaptation of the original *Opposing Counsel Review* skill by Larissa Meredith-Flister (v2026-04-13), substantially rewritten and extended to add document-type-specific frameworks, forum-specific perspective, surgical strikes for oral submissions, structured gap analysis, and response preparation. --- ## 1. Context Gathering Establish the following before producing any analysis. If anything is not provided, ask before continuing. The analysis is shaped at every stage by these answers, so guessing them will produce a generic critique that lands in no specific forum or practice area. **Required:** 1. **Document type** — skeleton argument or written submissions; witness statement; expert report or joint statement; position statement (any forum); pleading (Particulars of Claim, Defence, Reply, Counterclaim); written advice or structured reasoning; other (ask). 2. **Forum and stage** — e.g. High Court (CCMC / application / PTR / trial / appeal); County Court; Court of Appeal; Supreme Court; coroner's court (PIR / inquest / Article 2 inquest); regulatory tribunal (GMC / NMC / HCPC / SRA / BSB); employment tribunal; First-tier or Upper Tribunal; Crown Court or Magistrates' Court; family court (FDR / final hearing); arbitration or media