Serhan Handani built a deliberately flawed skeleton argument and ran my Opposing Counsel Review skill against it.
Then wrote about what happened in UK Legal AI Brief: https://uklegalaibrief.co.uk/p/correction-stress-testing-larissa-meredith-flister-s-opposing-counsel-review-skill
He drafted (with Opus 4.7) a Part 24 skeleton for a fictional commercial dispute, planted the kinds of defects practitioners actually see - inflammatory tone, clauses cited but never set out, no engagement with UCTA s.3 or Misrepresentation Act s.3, performance asserted on the word of the Claimant’s own CTO - and then handed the lot to the skill to see what it would do with it.
A few things he flagged that I was particularly pleased to read:
- The skill identified the structural weakness immediately: the Claimant had collapsed two arguments (contract is sound; performance is a fact) into one, and the second was contested and unsuited to summary disposal.
- It picked up the statutory reasonableness controls the skeleton had quietly omitted, and cited the right binding authorities for them (First Tower Trustees, AXA Sun Life, Geldof v Simon Carves, Three Rivers).
- It caught a planted internal inconsistency at paragraph 5 that Serhan was not sure it would catch.
- The “if I were the judge” section produced a single quoted judicial question that, in his words, would “almost certainly sink the application in court”.
The Opposing Counsel Review skill is free, open-source (Apache 2.0), and available on Lawve AI.