Sutra and the Noble 8

Citation Firewall — adversarial draft review with live, database-backed citation verification for lawyers. The problem: Attorneys keep getting sanctioned for filing briefs containing AI-hallucinated citations — fake cases with plausible names and realistic reporters. It has happened repeatedly in real courtrooms since 2023 and keeps happening, because generic AI tools verify nothing. The lawyer finds out when the judge does. What it does: Paste a draft brief and an adversarial council of AI agents attacks it from independent angles — Opposing Counsel tears into every argument (tied to verbatim quotes from the brief), a Case Strategist proposes repairs, a Risk Assessor severity-scores each weakness. Then every citation is checked against CourtListener's live database of real court opinions. VERIFIED means a real opinion was found and linked — not that a model thinks it sounds right. Fabricated citations are flagged red and blocked from the synthesis. A final synthesis agent reconciles the council and the verified ledger into a severity-ranked report. Why it's different: Verification is architectural, not vibes — a model can extract a citation string but a model can never set a citation to VERIFIED; that status comes only from a CourtListener API match (enforced in code, grep-checkable). This is the layer that makes hallucinated-citation sanctions structurally impossible. How it was built: Briefed Claude (Opus 4.8) in Claude Code with a written brief, a machine-gradable rubric, and verifiable done-gates, then let it run autonomously — it wrote its own plan, built verifier-first, and used a verifier sub-agent in a fresh context to grade its work against the rubric before declaring done. The product is a verifier agent for lawyers; it was built under a verifier agent for code. Same architecture, same philosophy. Live: https://firewall.iceclaw.online · Repo: github.com/jbwagoner/citation-firewall

Team

Placement

Participant