Lawve AI

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。

Screens a dismissal — proposed or already done — against the unfair dismissal framework for England & Wales, and shows where it is exposed. Structures the qualifying-service question, the automatically-unfair categories (no qualifying period), and a Burchell / Polkey / band-of-reasonable-responses analysis for a solicitor to verify — it does not determine fairness. Surfaces specific procedural risks. Use when the user says 'is this unfair', 'screen this dismissal', 'ordinary unfair dismissal', 'automatic unfair dismissal', or wants a structured fairness review before or after dismissal.

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。

GDPR Transfer Impact Assessment for Chapter V transfers under the EDPB Recommendations 01/2020 six-step methodology, the CNIL TIA Guide (January 2025), and EDPB essential guarantees. Handles transfer qualification, Art. 45 adequacy fast-tracks, Art. 46 full assessments with country profiles for 12 jurisdictions, and balanced Art. 49 derogation analysis. Outputs a Markdown report, a .docx formal TIA, and a JSON delta for RoPA interchange.

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。

Optimizes Claude for proofreading French texts, whether literary, technical, or professional. Grammar and spelling checks, detection of barbarisms, and stylistic suggestions.

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。

Rédaction de requêtes devant le Conseil de prud'hommes pour contester un licenciement pour faute grave. Utiliser ce skill quand l'utilisateur demande de rédiger une requête CPH, contester un licenciement pour faute grave, préparer une saisine du CPH pour un litige lié à un licenciement, ou créer un document de contestation de licenciement en droit du travail français.

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。

RFP creation, distribution, evaluation, and shortlisting for in-house legal teams selecting outside counsel. Draft a new legal services RFP from scratch, evaluate firm responses against weighted criteria, produce a shortlist recommendation with selection rationale for GC sign-off, or design the end-to-end RFP process from scratch. Trigger on: 'draft an RFP', 'run an RFP process', 'evaluate firm responses', 'score the RFP submissions', 'which firms should we shortlist', 'selection recommendation', 'how do we run a panel RFP', 'RFP for legal services', 'pitch process', 'firm selection process', 'compare the proposals', 'we're reviewing our panel', 'panel refresh RFP', 'we need to go to market', 'request for proposal', 'evaluate the pitches', 'which firm won the RFP', 'write a legal RFP', 'RFP evaluation criteria', 'design the RFP process', 'how do we weight the criteria'.

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。

Generates standalone interactive HTML "deal cards" that translate complex regulations into negotiation-ready reference tools, systematically distinguishing mandatory obligations from negotiable implementation choices. Use when the user needs an interactive regulatory guide for (1) contract negotiation support, (2) client education or internal training, (3) regulatory briefings for commercial stakeholders, or (4) structured comparison between required and flexible compliance paths. Primary focus on EU digital regulation (Data Act, AI Act, CRA, DORA, NIS2, GDPR) but the structural pattern transfers to any regulation where separating hard obligations from implementation choice is the point. Supports bilingual output where the jurisdiction calls for it.

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。

This skill stress-tests a proposed settlement position before an offer goes out or comes back: the assumptions it depends on, your leverage and the opponent’s, the evidential weaknesses, the likely opponent response, and the timing and costs pressures around it. It structures settlement judgment for a better-informed decision; it does not advise whether to settle.

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。

Assess, report, and manage serious incidents involving high-risk AI systems under Article 73 EU AI Act. Covers incident qualification, deadline buckets (2/10/15 days), authority notification, deployer duties (Art. 26(5)), cross-regulation mapping (GDPR/NIS2/MDR), corrective measures, and DACH-specific routing. Use when asked to evaluate whether an AI incident is reportable, draft an Article 73 notification, identify the right authority, or build an AI incident response process.

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。

Expert TSA cybersecurity compliance advisor for critical infrastructure owners and operators. Use this skill whenever a user asks about TSA Security Directives for pipelines, freight railroads, passenger rail, public transit, or bus operators; the TSA Cyber Risk Management Program (CRMP); Cybersecurity Implementation Plan (CIP); Cybersecurity Operational Implementation Plan (COIP); Cybersecurity Assessment Plan (CAP); incident reporting to CISA; designation of a Cybersecurity Coordinator; Critical Cyber Systems (CCS); OT/IT network segmentation; the TSA November 2024 NPRM; or any directive in the SD Pipeline-2021 series, SD 1580-21-01 (freight rail), or SD 1582-21-01 (public transit/passenger rail). Also trigger for questions like "are we covered by TSA directives?", "what does the TSA require for pipeline cybersecurity?", "how do I build a CIP?", "what must I report to CISA?", or any request involving transportation critical infrastructure cybersecurity compliance.

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。

Audits legal AI skills, prompts, workflows, MCP/tool instructions, and agent packages for prompt injection, malicious instructions, unsafe scripts, suspicious metadata, credential exposure, exfiltration paths, persistence mechanisms, and supply-chain risk. Use before installing, importing, publishing, promoting, modifying, or trusting third-party or generated AI skills and legal workflows. Do not use as a generic code review unless skill trust, workflow safety, prompt injection, or supply-chain hygiene is in scope.

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。

Run an attorney-facing knockout/availability trademark search across the United States and Canada. Use whenever a user (founder, client, or attorney) asks whether a brand, mark, name, logo, slogan, or product name is "available," "free to use," "clearable," or "already taken" — or asks Claude to "search the trademark register," "check USPTO," "check CIPO," "do a knockout search," "clearance search," "availability search," or "see if [mark] is trademarked." Trigger even when the user phrases it casually ("can I call my company X?", "is this name taken?"). Covers federal USPTO (TESS/TSDR), federal Canada (CIPO), common-law/web/state, and WIPO Madrid international. Output is a knockout availability memo with green/yellow/red verdict for attorney review. Includes professional-responsibility gating (AI-use disclosure, conflict check, scope confirmation) before substantive analysis. Not legal advice — produces work product for attorney sign-off.

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。

Audit Terms of Service, user agreements, and privacy policies for consumer risks, producing a structured report that flags unfair clauses, data traps, and liability issues. Trigger when a user asks to review, audit, or analyze a ToS, privacy policy, or user agreement, or mentions specific concerns like auto-renewal or data authorization.

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。

Scope management for legal matters — baseline capture, in-flight change control, OOS documentation, and scope retrospective. Use when asked to review scoping assumptions, assess whether work is in or out of scope, draft a scope change notice, track scope changes, prepare an OOS justification, run an OOS report, prepare a scope call agenda, or review what changed on a matter. Trigger on: 'scope change', 'out of scope', 'OOS', 'scope creep', 'is this in scope', 'the client wants us to also', 'additional work', 'scope review', 'what changed from the original scope', 'we need to revisit the quote', 'the budget assumed', 'OOS report', 'scope call with the client', 'run a scope report'.

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。

Contract Review for Tech and general contract. Smart redflagging feature to show the problems.

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。

Adjudicates whether a hit generated by sanctions, PEP, or adverse-media screening is a true positive, false positive, or requires human escalation. Use whenever a user presents a screening alert, a name match against a watchlist (OFAC SDN, EU consolidated list, UK OFSI, UN list, PEP list, adverse media hit, etc.), or asks to clear a screening hit / reduce false positives / determine whether a flagged name is actually the listed party. Use even when the user describes the task casually — "is this person actually on the sanctions list", "did we get a real match", "clear this alert", "I have a hit on X" — these are all screening-adjudication tasks. Produces a deterministic determination with full audit trail (structured JSON + human-readable narrative). Designed for use by compliance analysts and screening systems.

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 for creating effective skills. Use when users want to create a new skill (or update an existing skill) that extends the model's capabilities with specialized knowledge, workflows, or tool integrations.

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。

Systematic contract negotiation strategies for technology services agreements with German/EU law specificity. Provides three-position framework (provider-favorable, balanced, client-favorable), deal-size calibration (€100K to €10M+), five-tier objection handling with regulatory leverage (GDPR, DORA, NIS2, BGB), concession packaging, and position matrices for liability, IP, payment, SLA, data protection, and termination. Use when: (1) Developing negotiation strategies for SaaS, cloud, or managed services agreements, (2) Preparing position papers and fallback positions, (3) Responding to counterparty objections, (4) Structuring concession packages that protect core economics, (5) Calibrating tactics to deal size and leverage, or (6) Applying German contract law constraints (BGB §§ 305-310 AGB, § 309 Nr. 7 liability limits, § 288 statutory interest).

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。

Determines whether a specific AI-agent action, output, recommendation, or proposed commitment remains admissible for execution or institutional reliance under current authority, delegated scope, evidence, facts, policy, risk, escalation, and revocation conditions. Use this Skill before an enterprise or regulated AI agent executes, updates records, triggers workflows, communicates externally, or before an institution relies on an agentic output in a way that creates consequence.

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。

Expert SWIFT Customer Security Programme (CSP) advisor covering the Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF v2026). Use this skill whenever a user asks about SWIFT CSP, CSCF controls, SWIFT security attestation, KYC-SA portal, SWIFT architecture types (A1/A2/A3/A4/B), mandatory vs advisory controls, independent assessment, SWIFT secure zone, secure flow zone, MFA for operators, SWIFT messaging security, payment fraud prevention on SWIFT, gap analysis for CSCF, or compliance with SWIFT's 32 controls (25 mandatory, 7 advisory in v2026) across the three objectives: Secure Your Environment, Know and Limit Access, Detect and Respond. Control 2.4 (Back-Office Data Flow Security) is now mandatory in v2026. v2026 attestation window is July 1– December 31, 2026. Trigger for any SWIFT CSP or CSCF compliance question.

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。

Expert Section 508 compliance advisor for US federal ICT accessibility. Use this skill whenever a user asks about Section 508, WCAG 2.0/2.1 AA for federal systems, VPAT or Accessibility Conformance Reports (ACR), accessibility audits, remediation planning, PDF accessibility, web or software accessibility, mobile accessibility, federal procurement accessibility requirements, contractor obligations, undue burden exceptions, assistive technology compatibility, or Section 508 testing. Covers the Revised Section 508 Standards (2018), all WCAG 2.0 Level AA success criteria, the four POUR principles, testing methodologies, and agency compliance workflows. Trigger even if the user doesn't say "skill" — any Section 508 or ICT accessibility question for federal systems should 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。

Stakeholder mapping, communication plan design, reporting hierarchy, and mid-matter comms updates. Use when setting up a new matter and needing to identify who needs what information, designing the communication rhythm, building reporting structures for multi-jurisdiction programmes, or updating the comms plan when the stakeholder landscape changes. Trigger on: 'stakeholder map', 'who needs to be kept informed', 'communication plan', 'reporting structure', 'who do we report to', 'how often do we meet', 'client wants more updates', 'new contact on the client side', 'build the comms plan', 'reporting hierarchy', 'HQ vs regions', 'who is the decision maker', 'comms rhythm', 'meeting cadence', 'status call schedule'.

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。

Adversarial verification of AI-generated legal content with systematic fact-checking, source validation, and quality control. Use when a user asks to verify, fact-check, red-team, validate sources, or quality-control a legal document, briefing, compliance summary, or regulatory analysis before it is distributed to clients, stakeholders, or published. Trigger phrases include "verify", "fact-check", "red team", "red-flag", "check accuracy", "validate sources", "quality control", "is this correct", and "review for errors". Produces a structured verification report with severity-categorized errors, verified sources, unsupported claim list, missing disclaimers, and an explicit distribution-readiness assessment.

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。