リサーチ・学習のスキル

Research audiences: personas, JTBD maps, RFM segments. One persona doc → audience-profile. "run a JTBD analysis"

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Plan a case study: narrative, interview questions, formats. "turn this client win into a case study"

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Advanced content and topic research skill that analyzes trends across Google Analytics, Google Trends, Substack, Medium, Reddit, LinkedIn, X, blogs, podcasts, and YouTube to generate data-driven article outlines based on user intent analysis

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Complete App Store Optimization (ASO) toolkit for researching, optimizing, and tracking mobile app performance on Apple App Store and Google Play Store

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Benchmark LLM reference recommendation capabilities by verifying every cited paper against Crossref, PubMed, arXiv, and DBLP. Measures hallucination rate, per-field accuracy (title/author/year/DOI), discipline breakdown, and year constraint compliance. Supports tool-augmented (ReAct + web search) mode. Use when the user asks to evaluate, benchmark, or compare models on academic reference hallucination, literature recommendation quality, or citation accuracy.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Review academic papers for correctness, quality, and novelty using OpenJudge's multi-stage pipeline. Supports PDF files and LaTeX source packages (.tar.gz/.zip). Covers 10 disciplines: cs, medicine, physics, chemistry, biology, economics, psychology, environmental_science, mathematics, social_sciences. Use when the user asks to review, evaluate, critique, or assess a research paper, check references, or verify a BibTeX file.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when the user wants to compare or benchmark multiple LLMs/agents arena-style but it's unclear which specific workflow fits — a general-purpose win-rate comparison on a custom task, or a benchmark specifically about reference/citation hallucination rate. Also use when the user mentions model arena, agent arena, pairwise model comparison, win-rate ranking, or comparing models on a task and hasn't specified whether that task is generic or about citation accuracy. This skill is the entry router for the arena-eval suite: it asks one diagnostic question when needed, then recommends the workflow or workflows needed to cover the request.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when the user wants help with academic papers or citations but it's unclear which specific workflow fits — reviewing a paper, checking a BibTeX file for fake references, or benchmarking multiple LLMs on reference-recommendation accuracy. Also use when the user mentions paper review, peer review, BibTeX verification, citation checking, reference hallucination, or academic literature accuracy and hasn't specified which of those three tasks they mean. This skill is the entry router for the academic-eval suite: it asks one diagnostic question then routes to the right sub-skill.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Verify a BibTeX file for hallucinated or fabricated references by cross-checking every entry against CrossRef, arXiv, and DBLP. Reports each reference as verified, suspect, or not found, with field-level mismatch details (title, authors, year, DOI). Use when the user wants to check a .bib file for fake citations, validate references in a paper, or audit bibliography entries for accuracy.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

When the user wants to conduct, analyze, or synthesize customer research. Use when the user mentions "customer research," "ICP research," "talk to customers," "analyze transcripts," "customer interviews," "survey analysis," "support ticket analysis," "voice of customer," "VOC," "build personas," "customer personas," "jobs to be done," "JTBD," "what do customers say," "what are customers struggling with," "Reddit mining," "G2 reviews," "review mining," "digital watering holes," "community research," "forum research," "competitor reviews," "customer sentiment," or "find out why customers churn/convert/buy." Use for both analyzing existing research assets AND gathering new research from online sources. For writing copy informed by research, see copywriting. For acting on research to improve pages, see cro.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Pick the right LLM for LEGAL RESEARCH & ANALYSIS — issue-spotting, rule application, case/statute analysis, memos, and multi-step agentic research. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 benchmarks (Vals AI LegalBench across 124 models; Harvey Legal Agent Benchmark for agentic work). Asks up to 4 quick questions (cost, speed, accuracy/stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/language), then recommends a primary model + fallback + what to avoid + what a human must verify. Use when someone asks "which model for legal research / case analysis / a memo", "best AI for legal reasoning", "route this research task", or is starting legal analysis without a fixed model.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Verification-first methodology for the UNMIK Regulation 64 Panels of the Kosovo district courts (2000–2008). Citations are verified against UNMIK/EULEX archives and legal-tools.org. Keeps the Reg. 64 Panels distinct from the Kosovo Specialist Chambers, and clarifies that Reg. 2000/64 permitted (did not impose) internationally-majority panels. Research aid, not legal advice. Part of the open-source "Skills for International Justice" library — methodology: github.com/jeannesulzer/international-criminal-tribunals-skills

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Guide to analyze a current work session and propose improvements to skills. Use (1) automatically after working with a skill to capture learnings, (2) when the user suggests improvements, corrections, or additions during a skill-related session, or (3) when the user manually invokes `self-improve`.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Verification-first methodology for the Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz (JEP), Colombia's transitional justice court under the 2016 Acuerdo Final with FARC-EP. Citations are verified against jep.gov.co before use. Covers the 11 macrocasos (from Caso 01 secuestro through Caso 11 violencia sexual, including Caso 03 falsos positivos), the three sanction tiers (propias, alternativas, ordinarias), TOAR, and the SIVJRNR sister bodies (CEV, UBPD). Guards the key structural distinctions (Sala de Reconocimiento vs Tribunal para la Paz; comparecientes FARC-EP vs Fuerza Pública vs terceros civiles; Acto Legislativo 01/2017 vs Ley Estatutaria 1957/2019). Research aid, not legal advice.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Verifies UK case-law citations, pinpoint references and quotations against the official public register — The National Archives' Find Case Law — and statutory references against legislation.gov.uk, before a document that cites them is relied on, served or filed. Every check returns a graded verdict: VERIFIED, MISMATCH (the citation resolves to a different case — the classic AI miscitation), NOT ON REGISTER, OUTSIDE COVERAGE (the register cannot answer — absence proves nothing), or UNCHECKABLE (a law-report citation). The grading exists because there are two ways to get this wrong: citing a case that does not exist, and accusing a real case of not existing. Use when asked to check citations, verify a case exists, confirm a quotation is verbatim, check a pinpoint paragraph, audit a draft's authorities, screen a document for hallucinated cases, or check a statutory provision is in force. Not a substitute for reading the judgment: existence is not authority.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

First-pass framework for reading, interpreting, and structuring statutory analysis of US federal, state, and local law. Produces draft analysis for attorney review — not legal advice. Use this skill whenever the user references a specific US statute, regulation, ordinance, or rule by citation, asks "what does [statute X] require," asks for compliance scoping, applicability thresholds, requirement extraction, exemption analysis, definitional analysis, federal preemption analysis, or multi-state comparison — even if they don't explicitly ask for "statutory analysis." Halts and asks for missing inputs rather than guessing. Out of scope for non-US law.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Verification-first methodology for the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. Citations are verified against the STL legacy archive and legal-tools.org. Covers the Ayyash et al. case, the two contempt cases (STL-14-05 New TV/Al-Khayat and STL-14-06 Akhbar Beirut/Al-Amin), and the 2011 terrorism decision. Research aid, not legal advice. Part of the open-source "Skills for International Justice" library — methodology: github.com/jeannesulzer/international-criminal-tribunals-skills

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Reviews or drafts the agreement that pays an employee to settle their claims — and flags the statutory conditions that decide whether it actually binds them. Works under s.203 ERA 1996 for England & Wales. Flags apparent s.203 condition gaps for a solicitor to confirm (writing, specific complaints, independent adviser, identification, insurance, statement of conditions), drafts the substantive terms (sum, tax characterisation, confidentiality, references, restrictive covenants, indemnities), and surfaces enforceability risks. Does not rule on validity and is not legal advice. Use when the user says 'review this settlement agreement', 'draft a settlement agreement', 'compromise agreement' (old term), or asks whether an agreement is binding.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Verification-first methodology for the Special Panels for Serious Crimes of the Dili District Court (UNTAET, 2000–2006). Citations are verified against JSMP, the UN archives and legal-tools.org. Covers the Los Palos case, the Serious Crimes Unit caseload (391 indicted; about 88 tried) and the SPSC-vs-Jakarta distinction. Research aid, not legal advice. Part of the open-source "Skills for International Justice" library — methodology: github.com/jeannesulzer/international-criminal-tribunals-skills

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Brief statutes and legislative Acts using the MAPS + RULES framework. Use when briefing statutes, analyzing legislative text, mapping statutory structure, extracting rule-modules from provisions, applying statutes to scenarios, or any statutory analysis task. Triggers include "brief this statute," "analyze this Act," "map the statute," "apply [statute] to [scenario]," "what are the elements of [provision]," "statutory analysis," or references to codified sections (such as 42 U.S.C. sections or Texas Health & Safety Code). Supports two modes - (A) text-only briefing for structural analysis, and (B) scenario-driven briefing that applies statutory provisions to specific facts.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Verification-first methodology for the Special Court for Sierra Leone and its Residual Special Court. Citations are verified against rscsl.org and legal-tools.org. Covers Taylor, the AFRC/CDF/RUF cases, the child-soldier and forced-marriage holdings, the head-of-State immunity decision, and the fixed-term (no life) penalty regime. Research aid, not legal advice. Part of the open-source "Skills for International Justice" library — methodology: github.com/jeannesulzer/international-criminal-tribunals-skills

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

No Inference / Source-Locked Verification. Forces Claude to answer ONLY from user-provided materials and/or online sources actually accessed — no inference, no assumptions, no gap-filling. Every factual, legal, numerical, or procedural claim must be anchored to a cited source. Use whenever Claude reviews documents, summarises evidence, checks accuracy, drafts submissions, creates timelines, extracts facts, checks citations, analyses rules, prepares legal arguments, compares documents, verifies claims, produces chronologies, works from uploaded materials, performs legal research, checks case status, or does anything where evidential fidelity matters. Also trigger on: 'source-locked', 'no inference', 'only from the materials', 'don't assume', 'stick to the evidence', 'verify this', 'check this is right', 'work from the documents'. Overrides Claude's default tendency to fill gaps. If evidential accuracy matters, use this skill.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

>Ce skill génère des sujets d'entraînement pour les deux épreuves écrites de consultation du CRFPA : l'épreuve de droit des obligations (tronc commun) et l'épreuve de spécialité (civil, affaires, social, pénal, administratif, international et européen, fiscal). Chaque sujet est accompagné d'une grille de notation détaillée sur 20 points. Vous ciblez un thème précis, ou vous laissez le skill procéder à un tirage au sort couvrant l'ensemble du programme. Connexion aux MCP OpenLegi et GoodLegal requise : toutes les références d'articles et d'arrêts sont vérifiées sur les sources officielles, sans citation inventée

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Recherche académique dans les bases de données de doctrine juridique française, européenne et internationale. Utiliser cette skill lorsque l'utilisateur demande de rechercher des articles de doctrine, des thèses, des ouvrages académiques, ou des travaux universitaires en droit — y compris en droit comparé. Sources principales : ISIDORE (agrégateur SHS du CNRS incluant Cairn.info, Persée, OpenEdition), HAL (archive ouverte française), OpenAlex (base ouverte mondiale 250M+ travaux), Semantic Scholar, CrossRef, Persée (OAI direct), et CORE. Couvre la doctrine juridique francophone ET internationale avec workflow bilingue intégré pour le droit comparé. Déclencher aussi pour : bibliographie commentée, état de l'art, revue de littérature juridique, recherche d'auteur, vérification de citation, analyse bibliométrique.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。