ambiguity-stress-test
From the author
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."
Install
npx skills add lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills --skill ambiguity-stress-test -a claude-code
Installs to .claude/skills/ambiguity-stress-test/ · Each command fetches the skill straight from GitHub with the open skills CLI.
No download: this skill’s licence (APACHE-2.0) does not let us redistribute its files. The install commands fetch them from GitHub instead.
Want your agent to suggest skills while you type? See how to use skills from your IDE.
Safety checks on SKILL.md
No warnings.
Why 87
aiqbench computes the trust score from public signals. It is not a security audit, so read a skill before you install it.
Similar skills
Closest to this one by what they do and when they are used.
- ambiguity-reportlawve-ai/awesome-legal-skillsTurn an interpretive-ambiguity audit of a legal text — contract, statute, regulation, or judicial opinion — into a polished deliverable. Produces a multi-page website (default), a single-page interactive site, a Microsoft Word document, a PowerPoint deck, or a LaTeX/PDF. Use whenever a user has a stress-test result, ambiguity audit, or "where will this be litigated" scenarios and wants to publish, present, or share them. Triggers on "publish the audit," "make a report from this," "turn this into a website / deck / brief / Word doc," "make a Netlify site," "build slides of these ambiguities," "render the scenarios," "package this stress test," "produce a LaTeX version," and similar. Pairs with the ambiguity-stress-test skill (the underlying analysis) but works on any structured or semi-structured ambiguity analysis. Visual design is opinionated but the user can override colors, fonts, and brand label. Most formats need Python and a writable filesystem; single-file HTML works where the host has neither.Testing★ 888
- red-teamsuboss87/FDEOpsStress-test a plan, brief or delivery claim against evidence and plausible failure modes. Use when the user asks for a red team or preparation for a consequential decision.Testing★ 947
- executive-mentorborghei/Claude-SkillsAdversarial thinking partner that stress-tests plans, prepares board meetings, and surfaces blind spots. Use when you need plan validation, board prep, hard-decision frameworks, or pre/post-mortem failure analysis.Testing★ 962
- challengepedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflowStress-test a finding against the choices you did not make. Enumerates the discrete forks a competent analyst could have taken (measure definition, sample filter, control set, clustering level, weighting, functional form), runs the specification grid, and reports the distribution rather than a point estimate — then attacks the identifying assumption with named, computable sensitivity statistics. Use when the user says "is this robust", "challenge this result", "specification curve", "multiverse", "how sensitive is this", "what if I'd used a different measure", "stress-test my estimate", or before a result becomes a headline claim. NOT a reviewer of prose or code — it challenges the CLAIM.Testing★ 1.7K
- ceo-advisorcbrock84/headcountPressure-tests a decision, plan, or idea before it is committed to — surfacing the assumption it rests on, the case against it, and what would have to be true for it to work. Use this when weighing options, when a plan needs challenging before commitment, when you have already decided and want a genuine gut check, when processing meeting notes into decisions, or when competing initiatives need ranking. Distinct from `chief-executive`, which owns direction; this one interrogates a specific decision.Testing★ 2.1K
- test-assumptionssuboss87/FDEOpsChallenge a proposed solution by identifying and testing consequential assumptions. Use when the brief feels too certain or discovery reveals contradictions.Testing★ 947
Ratings & reviews
—
no reviews
Tried this skill? Rate it to help others. Sign in
Discussion
Join the discussion. Sign in