Adversarially stress-tests a legal text — a contract, statute, regulation, or judicial opinion — for interpretive ambiguity: it finds the seams where the people governed by it will later disagree about what it means and turns each into a concrete dispute scenario with both sides' arguments, the likely outcome, and a fix. Use it whenever someone wants to pressure-test, red-team, audit, or find weak spots, loopholes, gaps, ambiguities, or drafting problems in a legal document; whenever a drafter wants to tighten a contract, statute, regulation, or opinion before it issues; whenever a litigator wants to mine an opinion or contract for arguments; or whenever someone hands over a legal text and asks where it will be fought over or for issue-spotting. Trigger it for contract review, statutory-ambiguity analysis, judicial-opinion scope analysis, and drafting QA — even if the user never says "stress-test" or "ambiguity."

Briefs statutes and legislative Acts using the MAPS + RULES framework: a system-level map of the whole Act (citation and text status, purpose, structure, scope, definitions) plus operational rule-modules for each operative provision (elements, legal effect, exceptions, procedure, consequences, forum, interaction rules). Works from statutory text supplied by the user and never invents statutory language. Use when briefing a statute, analyzing legislative text, mapping statutory architecture, extracting the elements of a provision, or applying a statute to facts. Triggers on "brief this statute", "analyze this Act", "map the statute", "apply [statute] to [scenario]", "what are the elements of [provision]", "statutory analysis", and on references to codified sections such as 42 U.S.C. or the Texas Health and Safety Code. Two modes: (A) text-only briefing for structural analysis, and (B) scenario-driven briefing that applies provisions to specific facts with verbatim quotation and pinpoint cites.

Produces detailed law-school case briefs of United States judicial opinions in a fixed nine-section structure: memory jogger, facts, procedural history, judicial votes, holding, opinion-by-opinion analysis, five future-application hypotheticals, critique, and verified key quotations. Also builds vote tables, cross-case consistency tables, perspective-based critiques, and LaTeX in article, Beamer and casebook-chapter formats. Use whenever someone asks to brief a case, analyse or explain an opinion, summarise a decision for students, generate hypotheticals from a holding, critique a judgment, tabulate how justices voted, or convert case analysis to LaTeX. Triggers on "brief this case", "case brief", "explain the holding", "what did the court hold", "hypotheticals based on", "critique this opinion", "vote table", "Beamer presentation", "chapter brief", and on any reference to a judicial opinion or Supreme Court decision in a teaching context. Requires web search to verify quotations, votes and holdings.

Produces an adversarial attack on a legal argument that survives reply. Runs the opposing-counsel discipline twice: an unrestrained first pass, then the same instrument turned on that pass to cut every point that collapses under challenge - attacks on facts your own side has conceded, objections belonging to the wrong forum, speculation about documents and motives, gotchas with innocent explanations, overclaims, self-refuting assertions, and padding. The deliverable is one standalone attack containing only what can be defended, capped at five heads, not a discussion of the discarded draft. Use to attack, stress-test, red-team or rebut a submission, brief, motion, witness statement, letter or piece of structured legal reasoning when the output must be something you could stand up and say. Also use when an earlier adversarial review came back overlong, scattershot or padded with points you do not trust. Derived from Opposing Counsel Review by Larissa Meredith-Flister (Apache-2.0). Formal British English.