What problem does it solve? Contested legal, policy, and compliance questions often get one-sided or jurisdiction-confused answers from a single-pass analysis. This Skill pressure-tests a directional legal claim by running a structured adversarial debate — a for-advocate, an against-advocate, and a judge — over live web research, with mandatory jurisdiction declaration and citation discipline distinguishing controlling from persuasive authority. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Adversarial debate workflow: Baseline pass, parallel for/against advocates, and a judge pass that endorses, rejects, or revises the claim with named weakening evidence and flip conditions. - Legal-domain enforcement: Mandatory jurisdiction gate, dual-axis citation diversity (zero URL overlap plus authority-hierarchy diversity), controlling-vs-persuasive annotation on every citation, and a statutory recency gate that flags superseded statutes and regulations. - Survey mode and safety contract: --mode survey refracts open-ended landscape questions across three analytical perspectives, and every output carries an educational-only disclaimer making clear it is not licensed legal advice. - Use Case: Ask whether California's AB-5 ABC test is preempted by FAAAA for motor carriers under US-CA-9th; the Skill debates both sides against Ninth Circuit authority, detects a stale AB-5 citation superseded by AB-2257, and returns a revised as-applied-preemption claim with medium confidence. ## Quick Start Invoke the skill with a directional legal claim and a declared jurisdiction, for example: run engage-lexicon with --jurisdiction US-DE-Chancery on the claim that MFW's dual-protection framework applies to this controller squeeze-out.
