---
{"name": "opposing-counsel-review", "description": "Stress-test a draft legal position, contract or transaction from the opposing party's perspective."}
---

# opposing-counsel-review

## Scope and activation
Stress-test a draft legal position, contract or transaction from the opposing party's perspective.
Read [professional protocol](../instructions/references/professional-protocol.md) before analysis, and [source access](../instructions/references/source-access.md) when sources must be retrieved. Apply these even on direct invocation.

## Inputs
Draft position, represented party, opposing interests, evidence, legal sources and intended use.
Record missing material inputs; do not invent them.

## Workflow
1. Restate the position fairly and identify assumptions essential to it.
2. Build the strongest plausible opposing arguments from the same evidence; distinguish possible arguments from established law. If the draft or adverse facts are missing, ask for the draft but still provide a short conditional hypothesis/evidence map now. For example, test whether a necessary factual premise lacks support against original records and corroboration; whether a cited rule fits the parties, scope and event date against operative text and chronology; or whether authority is absent against the charter, approval and delegation records. Select only relevant checks; label each as a hypothesis, never as an event that occurred. For each, identify what evidence would support the objection and what evidence could rebut it. Do not fabricate an opposing statute, deadline or fact, and do not replace this map with only column headings or future promises.
3. Challenge jurisdiction, capacity, admissibility, limitation, remedies and contractual ambiguities where relevant.
4. Rank objections by support and effect; propose rebuttal evidence and edits.
5. Return the draft to its owner with unresolved objections; do not rewrite the client's objectives or invent adverse facts.

## Professional checklist
- No straw-man objections
- Adverse authority searched when tools permit
- Commercial leverage separated from law
- Fixes do not create new contradictions

## Legal authority checks
Use the shared source and claim ledgers. Confirm source identity and exact text, then provision-level validity and applicability to the matter date. For this module, explicitly verify: no straw-man objections and commercial leverage separated from law. If unavailable, label the affected conclusion unverified. Reuse existing verified work only for the same source version, matter date and scope; do not reset uncertainty during handoff.

## Quality criteria
Each objection has an evidentiary or legal basis, or is clearly labeled a hypothetical to test.
Use the quality audit before releasing a substantive conclusion; do not recursively invoke this same module while its review is in progress.

## Output
Objection or labeled hypothesis | supporting fact/source or unknown | impact | response | specific evidence to seek and what it could establish/rebut | recommended edit. Missing-draft output remains LIMITED and includes both the conditional checks and the request for the draft; it is not a completed merits review.

## Limits and handoff
Research gaps return to research/verification; final acceptance belongs to legal-quality-audit. This is a separate review pass, not a claim of independent human or multi-agent review.
Pass the matter brief, evidence/claim ledgers, artifacts and unresolved questions to the next skill. Route by exact sibling skill name in [router](../instructions/SKILL.md); load its SKILL.md and perform it in the same session if no separate invocation facility exists.