# Hallucination Red-Team > Use when stress-testing draft legal work product for hallucination risk by separating factual claims, legal claims, cited authorities, user-provided information, model-generated information, unsupported claims, uncertainty, and safer revisions. - Skill: `zgbrenner/hallucination-red-team` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add zgbrenner/hallucination-red-team` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/zgbrenner/hallucination-red-team/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: AI & ML - Author: zgbrenner (https://skillmd.com/u/zgbrenner) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/zgbrenner/hallucination-red-team --- # Hallucination Red-Team ## Purpose Force a draft legal output to account for every factual claim, legal claim, cited authority, user-provided fact, model-generated statement, unsupported claim, and uncertainty marker. The skill produces either a safer revised version or a "not ready for use" finding. This focused hallucination pass complements the broader Red-Team Verifier. It does not independently verify the law and does not certify that a draft is correct. ## Use When - A draft contains legal claims, factual claims, citations, quotations, or confident conclusions that may be unsupported. - A user asks for a hallucination check, unsupported-claim audit, or safer revised version. - A draft will be sent externally, filed, used in a client communication, or relied on for a high-risk decision. - A model produced the draft without a clear claim/source table. **Choosing among the verification skills:** - Use this skill for a targeted hunt for fabricated or unsupported content in a draft. - Use `red-team-verifier` instead for the full adversarial pass over an entire deliverable — the superset that also covers reasoning, framing, jurisdiction, and completeness. - Use `citation-integrity-check` instead when the review is limited to citations and quotations. - Use `source-validation` instead for claim-by-claim classification of whether each claim in a draft is supported by the available sources. ## Required Inputs - The complete draft to red-team. - All user-provided facts and source documents available for comparison. - Any cited authorities, research notes, or source lists. - The intended use and recipient. If the draft is missing, stop and request it. If sources are missing, continue only as a limitation-heavy hallucination risk screen. ## Do Not Use When - The user wants new legal analysis instead of a verification pass. - The output has no claims to audit. - The user asks for a final certification that no hallucinations exist. ## Legal Safety Rules - **Source and citation discipline.** Follow `core/source-and-citation-discipline.md`. Never invent legal authority, citations, quotations, statutes, cases, regulations, filing deadlines, or procedural rules. Label what is a provided source, a user-provided fact, an assumption, a legal inference, or an item requiring attorney verification, and use a citation placeholder such as `[Attorney to insert authority]` when no source is available. - Produce draft legal work product for attorney review. This is not legal advice. - Do not claim the absence of hallucinations. State only what was checked and what remains unresolved. - Do not invent sources, facts, citations, or safer substitute law. - Do not assert that an authority exists or is fabricated unless verified by source material available in the session. - Preserve privilege and confidentiality. ## Workflow 1. **Segment the draft.** Break the draft into discrete factual claims, legal claims, citations, quotations, assumptions, recommendations, and conclusions. 2. **Classify information origin.** For each item, mark whether it is user-provided, source-provided, model-generated, inferred, or unclear. 3. **Inventory authorities.** List every authority, citation, quotation, source URL, statute, rule, case, regulation, or guidance reference. 4. **Flag unsupported claims.** Mark claims with no source, insufficient source support, contradicted source support, unclear origin, or overbroad phrasing. 5. **Flag authority risks.** Mark invented-looking or unverifiable authorities, missing pin cites, jurisdiction mismatch, outdated authority risk, and unsupported legal propositions. 6. **Mark uncertainty.** Add or recommend `[CONFIRM: ...]`, `[VERIFY: ...]`, `[citation needed]`, `[pin cite needed]`, `[verify jurisdiction]`, and `[deadline verification required]` markers where needed. 7. **Decide readiness.** If material unsupported claims, authority risks, or missing gates remain, mark "not ready for use." Otherwise mark "ready for attorney review," not final use. 8. **Revise safely.** Produce a safer revised version only where the revision removes overclaiming, labels uncertainty, or narrows to supported facts. Do not supply missing law. ## Output Format Deliver: 1. **Draft Label** — "Draft legal work product for attorney review. Not legal advice." 2. **Readiness Finding** — Ready for attorney review / Not ready for use, with reasons. 3. **Claim-Origin Table** | # | Claim | Type | Origin | Support status | Risk | Required action | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| 4. **Authority Risk Table** | Authority | Use in draft | Verification status | Hallucination risk | Required action | |---|---|---|---|---| 5. **Unsupported Claims List** 6. **Uncertainty Markers To Add** 7. **Safer Revised Version** — Or "No safe revision without additional sources/attorney judgment." 8. **Attorney Verification Checklist** ## Attorney Verification Checklist - [ ] Every factual claim is traced to user-provided or source-provided material, or is marked as unsupported. - [ ] Every legal claim is supported by verified authority or flagged for attorney research. - [ ] Every cited authority and quotation has been independently checked. - [ ] Model-generated claims have been removed, sourced, or marked for verification. - [ ] Jurisdiction and deadline gaps are resolved or visibly flagged. - [ ] The revised draft does not present unsupported analysis as settled law. - [ ] The output is ready for attorney review only; it has not been treated as final.