リサーチ・学習のスキル

Compliant, retrieval-grounded research over investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) awards and decisions. Use when the user asks about ICSID / investment-treaty arbitration cases, awards, or doctrines (fair and equitable treatment, expropriation, jurisdiction, costs, annulment, etc.) and wants answers grounded in the actual document text with pinpoint citations. Identifies the correct document on the case page, confirms it against the PDF's own first pages, retrieves primary documents on demand from ICSID, PCA, etc., never scrapes or hosts a corpus in violation of applicable terms, and cites only retrieved text.

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 Kosovo Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor's Office (The Hague, applying Kosovo law). Citations are verified against scp-ks.org before use; appeal registry numbers are cited only once confirmed. Covers Thaçi et al., Mustafa, Pjetër Shala and Gucati & Haradinaj. 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。

Assesses a legal argument, submission, or piece of structured reasoning from the perspective of a judge reading it cold under time pressure. Produces a structured seven-part assessment: what the case appears to be about, immediate points of confusion, what feels strong, what feels weak, what is assumed but unproved, a provisional confidence level (low/medium/high), and what would be needed to persuade. The skill does not rewrite, improve, or attack the argument — it tells you how it actually lands on a sceptical, experienced reader with no prior context. Works on skeleton arguments, witness statements, letters before action, position statements, academic articles, and non-legal structured reasoning.

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 ICTY, the ICTR and the Residual Mechanism (IRMCT). Citations are verified against irmct.org, the Case Law and Unified Court Records databases, and legal-tools.org. Handles the IT/ICTR to MICT case-number transition (Karadžić, Mladić) and the protective-measures rule. 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。

Searches the domestic courts of 122 jurisdictions — 153 databases, 49 automated — for extradition and arrest-warrant surrender decisions, each in its own language and vocabulary. Answers the question no commercial database does: how are OTHER executing states treating this requesting state, or this ground? Searching by requesting state localises its name per jurisdiction (AE becomes 'Emiratele Arabe Unite' in Romania, 'Emirati Arabi Uniti' in Italy), so the sweep finds what those courts actually wrote. Every hit passes a relevance gate; every search leaves a dated report, so the research is reconstructable months later. Use when asked what foreign courts have said about surrender to a given state, whether any European court has refused extradition on prison conditions, assurances or Article 3, for comparative extradition research, or to build a foreign-authority section of an extradition argument. Not for domestic case law of the user's own jurisdiction, and never a substitute for reading the judgment.

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。

A jurisdiction-grounding reference file for AI assistants working on Gibraltar legal, regulatory, and compliance research. Corrects systematic errors AI models make when applying English law to Gibraltar — a distinct jurisdiction under the Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006, with its own court hierarchy, civil procedure rules, employment law, and regulatory framework. Covers the source hierarchy, court structure, civil procedure divergences (14-day deemed service, post-Jackson reforms not adopted), employment law specifics (uncapped discrimination awards, 5-employee redundancy threshold), FSC financial services regulation, AML/KYC compliance sources, Gibraltar Companies Act 2014 with UBO public register, and a structured directory of official public record sources. Includes research profiles for lawyers, compliance professionals, and due diligence practitioners. 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。

Verification-first methodology for the ECCC (Khmer Rouge Tribunal). Every citation is verified against eccc.gov.kh, the ECCC archive or legal-tools.org. Covers Case File numbering, the 001/002/002-01/002-02 structure, the genocide findings against the Cham and the Vietnamese, and the Internal Rules revision discipline. 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。

Research a US employment law topic across federal, state, and city jurisdictions and produce structured research notes with proper source attribution. Use this skill any time the user asks about US employment laws, regulations, or pending legislation - from a single jurisdiction question to a 50-state survey. Triggers include phrases like "research [employment law topic]", "what are the laws on [employment topic]", "state-by-state [employment topic]", "help me understand [topic] across the US", or any prompt that asks for a legal landscape overview before another deliverable. Always run this BEFORE the employment-law-dashboard skill if a dashboard is the eventual output. Output is a structured research note that distinguishes primary sources (statutes, regs, agency guidance) from secondary sources (law firm alerts, tracker orgs).

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。

Index analytiques sourcés du corpus réglementaire et doctrinal sur la gouvernance des émetteurs cotés français (rapports AMF et HCGE 2020-2025, guide d'application HCGE, rapport sénatorial Rietmann/Gay, Code AFEP-MEDEF, sources légales et européennes). À utiliser pour : (1) retrouver une position, une statistique ou une citation exacte avec sa source et sa page ; (2) analyser l'évolution longitudinale des positions AMF/HCGE/ESMA sur un thème ; (3) appliquer la grille d'analyse en 13 blocs (A-M) à un émetteur. Déclencher pour toute question sur la gouvernance d'une société cotée française : conseil d'administration, indépendance des administrateurs, comités, rémunération des dirigeants, say on pay, say on climate, assemblée générale, droits des actionnaires, plans de succession, mixité, RSE/CSRD, comply-or-explain, name and shame AMF, soft law AFEP-MEDEF, recommandations AMF, positions HCGE.

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。

Méthodologie « verification-first » pour les Chambres Africaines Extraordinaires (procès Hissène Habré, Dakar). Toute citation est vérifiée (forumchambresafricaines.org, legal-tools.org). Couvre le jugement du 30 mai 2016, l'arrêt d'appel du 27 avril 2017 (réparations de 82,290 milliards FCFA pour 7 396 victimes), et la compétence universelle. Aide à la recherche, pas un conseil juridique. Fait partie de la bibliothèque open source « Skills for International Justice » — méthodologie : 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。

EU AI Act Knowledge Engine — authoritative regulatory Q&A grounded in 70 official EU source documents (including the 2026 Commission draft guidelines on Art. 6 high-risk classification — general principles, Annex I, Annex III). Answers any question about the AI Act with article-level citations from the full regulation text, Commission guidelines, EDPB/EDPS opinions, codes of practice, harmonised standards, FRIA guides, incident templates, and sector-specific guidance. This skill should be used when the user asks about the "EU AI Act", "AI Act regulation", "Regulation 2024/1689", "KI-Verordnung", asks to "explain an AI Act article", "what does Article X say", "AI Act requirements", "AI Act penalties", "AI Act timeline", "GPAI obligations", "high-risk AI", "prohibited AI practices", "AI Act and GDPR", "fundamental rights impact assessment", "AI Act standards", "AI Act national implementation", "AI literacy", "serious incident reporting", "Digital Omnibus", "AI regulatory sandbox", or any question about EU artificial intelligence regulation. Also triggers on German terms: "KI-Gesetz", "KI-Verordnung", "Hochrisiko-KI", "KI-Kompetenz", "Grundrechte-Folgenabschaetzung", "GPAI-Verhaltenskodex". For assessment workflows that produce a classification decision rather than a knowledge answer, offer to run a structured risk-tier classification in-session.

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。

Capture, structure, and recycle lessons from active and closed legal matters. Three modes: in-flight capture (triggered by scope changes, risk events, status updates — highest value), mid-matter review (phase gates or quarterly), and matter close retrospective (full structured findings). Lessons are formatted for immediate reuse, not filed and forgotten. Use when a risk materialises, a scope change lands, a phase completes, or a matter closes and you want to convert what happened into something useful for the next matter. Trigger on: 'capture a lesson', 'what did we learn', 'matter close', 'retrospective', 'lessons learned', 'what went wrong', 'what worked', 'phase gate review', 'debrief', 'extract the learning', 'close the matter', 'what should we do differently', 'pattern from this matter', 'improve the next one'.

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 Section I (War Crimes) of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Citations are verified against the Court of BiH, the ICTY/IRMCT archives and OSCE. Distinguishes ICTY-referred (Rule 11 bis) cases from locally-initiated ones; covers Stanković, Janković and the Maktouf lex mitior ruling. 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。

Turn complex legal analysis into clear, commercially useful client-facing advice. Use this whenever the user has dense legal material — drafting, internal analysis, counsel notes, research memos, pleadings, a case update, or correspondence — and wants it converted into something a client can actually understand and act on. Trigger on phrases like 'explain this to the client', 'put this in plain English', 'translate this for a non-lawyer', 'turn this into client-facing advice', 'make this client-ready', 'draft a client update', or when the user shares legal analysis and asks 'what does this mean for them'. Also trigger when the user wants a board summary, litigation risk update, or call script derived from legal material. The skill preserves legal nuance, uncertainty, and risk rather than oversimplifying — it makes advice usable, not just simpler.

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。

Méthodologie « verification-first » pour la Cour Pénale Spéciale de Centrafrique (cour hybride, siège à Bangui). Toute citation est vérifiée (JusticeInfo, FIDH, HRW, legal-tools.org ; les sites officiels renvoient souvent une erreur 403). Couvre l'affaire Paoua, le « notamment » de l'article 3, et la complémentarité avec la CPI. Aide à la recherche, pas un conseil juridique. Fait partie de la bibliothèque open source « Skills for International Justice » — méthodologie : 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。

Argentine Supreme Court citation network analysis using JurisRank — a peer-reviewed PageRank algorithm with temporal decay for measuring jurisprudential authority. Ranks precedents by citation influence, traces doctrinal evolution, and detects constitutional drift. Published methodology: JCLLT (DOI: 10.47852/bonviewJCLLT62027951). Activate with: which cases to cite, rank precedents, case authority, doctrinal evolution, Argentine Supreme Court, CSJN jurisprudence, citation network, leading case, legal research Argentina.

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。

Generate scaffolds that gradually increase student choice, voice, and ownership within a learning task. Use when students depend heavily on teacher direction and need to develop autonomy.

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。

Map evidence-based connections between a wellbeing initiative and specific academic learning outcomes. Use when justifying wellbeing programmes, integrating SEL, or linking pastoral and academic work.

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。

After scaffolded practice, run an unassisted check with no AI help. Use to distinguish supported performance from what the learner can currently do independently.

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 the week using accumulated session evidence — retrieval rates, hint depths, calibration accuracy, transfer and unassisted results. The learner identifies patterns and sets a strategy goal. Use weekly or after a multi-session period.

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。

Define the scope and purpose of a complex inquiry before mapping or futures work begins. Use when a class or group needs to agree what they are investigating, who it matters to, and at what scale.

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。

Develop TPACK for integrating a specific technology or AI tool into subject teaching with pedagogical alignment. Use when adopting new ed-tech, reviewing AI tools, or planning technology integration.

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。

Develop pedagogical content knowledge for a topic by surfacing common misconceptions and effective representations. Use when preparing to teach unfamiliar content or improving teaching of hard topics.

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。

Seven-role depersonalised panel review of framework artefacts (KUD, criterion bank, LT definition, crosswalk, scope-and-sequence) in sequential-isolation mode. Gate rule mean>=88 AND no role<70.

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。