Brainstorming (Law Firm)

brainstorming-lawfirm is the law-firm specialization of the brainstorming gate. Every client-facing deliverable — complaints, certified letters, settlement agreements, opinion memos, sentencing simulations — must pass through it before any drafting skill can run. A one-line certified letter goes through the same gate as a full criminal complaint; skipped design is the documented #1 cause of fabricated case numbers, missing statute-of-limitations analysis, and §109 exposure. Intake captures parties (with role-noun masking), key dates, evidence, prior actions, and the client's stated goal. Statutes and case citations are verified via K-Data MCP (legal_research / case_research / law_amendment); anything unverified is tagged `[확인 필요]` or `[MCP 미확인]` rather than silently included. PII never leaves local context — MCP queries use role nouns only. When two or more of nine complexity signals are present (multiple deliverables, mixed legal domains, weak evidence, threshold amounts or sentences, near-expiry statute, opposing counsel, ambiguous client goals, classification ambiguity, reputational risk), the skill convenes a one-round panel of five advisory agents: aggressive counsel, conservative counsel, judge's perspective, opposing counsel (devil's advocate), and client advocate. A moderator integrates their views into 2-3 final options with a clear recommendation. The panel is strictly advisory — it produces tradeoffs and reasoning, never drafts. After design approval, the spec is written to `docs/cases/YYYY-MM-DD-<사건명>-design.md`, passed through an 8-check self-review and an attorney pre-review gate, then explicitly hands off by name to one of six drafting skills. Externally, only 'Lyn 법률 어시스턴트 팀' or '이영남 변호사 AI 보조시스템' names are used; '법무법인' is forbidden per §23.