sboghossian Import: Red Team Verifier (Patrick Munro)
What it does
This import adapter migrates a red-team verification skill modelled on the Patrick Munro methodology into the mini-claude-for-legal standard format. Red-teaming in the legal context means deliberately challenging the document, analysis, or argument under review — as a sophisticated adversary would — to surface weaknesses before they are exploited by a counterparty, court, or regulator.
The Munro red-team approach applies to three contexts:
- Document red-teaming: stress-testing a contract, legal opinion, or regulatory submission against the strongest objections
- AI output verification: challenging Claude-generated legal analysis to detect hallucinations, unsupported conclusions, and jurisdiction errors
- Argument red-teaming: testing the legal arguments in a brief or submission against the opposition's best counter-arguments
Import config
| Field | Source mapping | Default if absent |
|---|---|---|
red_team_mode |
Legacy mode |
full (document + argument + ai_output) |
challenge_depth |
Legacy depth |
3 (three levels of challenge) |
adversary_persona |
Legacy adversary |
senior_opposing_counsel |
hallucination_check |
Legacy check_hallucinations boolean |
true |
jurisdiction_check |
Legacy check_jurisdiction boolean |
true |
citation_check |
Legacy check_citations boolean |
true |
output_format |
Legacy format |
red_team_report |
governing_law |
Legacy governing_law |
DIFC |
Dry-run preview
IMPORT PREVIEW — red-team-verifier-patrick-munro
Source shape : Adversarial verification skill (Munro methodology)
Mode : full (document + argument + AI output)
Challenge depth : 3 levels
Adversary persona : senior_opposing_counsel
Hallucination check: enabled
Jurisdiction check : enabled
Citation check : enabled
Output : red_team_report
Governing law : DIFC
Red-team methodology (post-import)
Level 1 — Surface challenges
- What is the weakest factual assertion in the document?
- What is the most ambiguous term or provision?
- What is the most one-sided clause?
Level 2 — Legal challenges
- What statutory or regulatory provision most directly undermines the position?
- What is the strongest precedent (or closest analogy) the opponent would cite?
- Where does the document fail to comply with a mandatory legal requirement?
Level 3 — Strategic challenges
- What procedural or jurisdictional argument could be used to challenge enforcement?
- What counterparty behaviour could make this document unenforceable?
- What change in circumstances (economic, regulatory, political) would destroy the basis for this position?
AI output verification track
When verifying AI-generated legal analysis:
- Citation check: verify every statute, article number, and case citation against known reliable sources. Flag any citation that cannot be verified — it may be a hallucination.
- Jurisdiction check: verify that every legal proposition is attributed to the correct jurisdiction and legal system (common law vs civil law; onshore vs DIFC/ADGM).
- Date check: verify that cited legislation is in force as of the relevant date; check for recent amendments.
- Internal consistency check: verify that conclusions follow from premises; flag logical gaps.
- Completeness check: are there mandatory requirements or standard clauses missing that a practitioner would expect?
Red-team report output
RED TEAM REPORT
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Document reviewed : [title]
Review date : [date]
Adversary persona : senior_opposing_counsel
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
CHALLENGE #1 [LEVEL 1 / SURFACE]
Challenge : [the challenge]
Weakness exploited : [specific provision or assertion]
Severity : HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
Recommended fix : [specific revision]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[repeat for each challenge]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
AI OUTPUT VERIFICATION
Hallucinations detected : [count] — [list]
Jurisdiction errors : [count] — [list]
Citation warnings : [count] — [list]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Overall verdict : PASS / NEEDS REVISION / FAIL
MENA-specific red-team flags
- Arabic language prevailing clause: if a bilingual contract's Arabic version differs from the English version, the Arabic governs in UAE/KSA — challenge any analysis based solely on the English text.
- Shariah-compliance assumption: challenge any financial provision not reviewed for Shariah compliance in KSA or conservative UAE contexts.
- Notarisation requirement: challenge enforceability of contracts in Lebanon or UAE civil jurisdictions where the transaction type requires notarial form.
- DIFC/ADGM jurisdiction validity: challenge whether the parties actually have a legitimate connection to justify DIFC/ADGM governing law.
Failure modes
| Error | Likely cause | Resolution |
|---|---|---|
only_surface_challenges |
Legacy limited to Level 1 | Override challenge_depth: 3 |
hallucination_check_disabled |
Legacy AI-output track disabled | Enable for all AI-generated content |
adversary_too_gentle |
Persona set to "neutral reviewer" | Override to senior_opposing_counsel |
jurisdiction_not_checked |
Citation check only | Enable separate jurisdiction_check: true |
Related skills
- [[import-legal-simulation-patrick-munro]]
- [[import-vendor-due-diligence-patrick-munro]]
- [[import-tech-contract-negotiation-patrick-munro]]
- [[import-legal-risk-assessment-anthropic]]
- [[review-contract-generic]]