What do I need to use Opposing Counsel?

The contract or agreement text; Which side the user is on; The likely dispute scenario.

Is Opposing Counsel free to use?

Yes — run it free in the browser playground (no API key needed for the sponsored trial, or bring any provider key), or install it into Claude Code, Cursor, ChatGPT and more via npx pm-claude-skills. MIT-licensed and open source.

Opposing Counsel

Q: How do I know the Opposing Counsel output is good?

The skill verifies itself against its own quality checks: Every attack quotes or cites the contract's actual language — no generic contract-law boilerplate; At least one clause earns 🛡 — an all-kill review means the reading was lazy, not forensic; The letter makes specific demands with dates, not vague threats; Each debrief fix is redline-ready wording, not "tighten this clause".

🔵 Stable🕐 updated 2026-07-14 🔷 SkillSpec L3 pm-simulators

Read a contract the way the counterparty's lawyer will — hunting for leverage, not fairness. Use when someone says 'read this like opposing counsel', 'how would the other side attack this agreement', 'find the weaknesses before they do', or before sending or signing any contract. Produces the demand/position letter opposing counsel would actually send, plus an out-of-character debrief with the clause fixes that defang each attack.

▶ Run it free — no key needed 📝 Grade your existing draft View SKILL.md ↗

What to give it

▸The contract or agreement text — or the clauses in dispute

▸Which side the user is on — and what they most need the contract to protect

▸The likely dispute scenario — (non-payment, scope fight, IP claim, termination) — if unknown, attack the three most probable

✅ The bar it holds itself to

Every skill in this library self-verifies — these are this skill's own quality checks, straight from its definition.

✓Every attack quotes or cites the contract's actual language — no generic contract-law boilerplate

✓At least one clause earns 🛡 — an all-kill review means the reading was lazy, not forensic

✓The letter makes specific demands with dates, not vague threats

✓Each debrief fix is redline-ready wording, not "tighten this clause"

✓Missing protections are named as findings — silence is the biggest weakness

✓The simulation disclaimer line appears in the artifact

⚠️ What it refuses to do

Do not pull punches — a flattering simulation is worthless

Do not invent facts not in the input; attack what's there and name what's missing

Do not stay in character in the debrief — the letter frightens, the debrief fixes

Do not present this as legal advice — it is a stress test to bring to a qualified lawyer

Do not attack both sides — opposing counsel has one client and it is not the user

Install

npx pm-claude-skills add --agent claude   # or codex · cursor · gemini · hermes
# or one-line MCP (every skill, any client):
claude mcp add pm-skills -- npx -y pm-claude-skills-mcp

Related skills

🔌 Embed this skill

Drop this on your blog, docs, or site — it renders a "Run this skill" card:

<div data-pm-skill="opposing-counsel"></div>
<script src="https://mohitagw15856.github.io/pm-claude-skills/embed.js" async></script>

💬 Discussion

Opposing Counsel is one of 599 open-source professional AI agent skills — all SkillSpec L3. Try them all in the browser · ⭐ Star on GitHub · Browse the full catalog