Use this skill when asked to translate, explain, or map Icelandic legal terms to English (or vice versa). Triggers on requests involving Icelandic legal vocabulary, legal translation, understanding Icelandic statutes or court decisions, or cross-referencing Icelandic and common law concepts.
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。
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。
Rigorous multi-pass editor for law review articles, student notes, seminar papers and other legal scholarship. Runs six specialized passes — structure, substantive critique, Bluebook citations, grammar and clarity, fact-checking against sources, and a synthesizing memo — and delivers an editorial memo with issues prioritized as critical, substantial or minor and keyed to specific footnotes and paragraphs. Handles articles of any length, including 50,000-word pieces, by chunking on section boundaries. Reads .docx directly. Use when editing, critiquing, workshopping or pre-submission-reviewing academic legal writing. Triggers on "edit my article," "review this draft," "critique my note," "check my Bluebook citations," "is my argument sound," "read my law review piece," "workshop this paper," "pre-submission review." Chunking needs Python 3; fact-checking needs web search; both degrade gracefully without.
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。
Turn a lawyer's bounded expertise, workflow, review standard, or legal judgment pattern into a safe, inspectable legal AI skill. Use when a user provides legal memos, comments, checklists, negotiation notes, review habits, compliance playbooks, or professional feedback and wants a reusable Lawve-style skill. Do not impersonate the lawyer or claim to reproduce a person; distill only authorized, source-bounded capability.
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。
Routes any legal task to the right LLM, like OpenRouter but for legal work and grounded in benchmarks instead of brand loyalty. Built from mid-2026 legal evals (legalbenchmarks.ai, Vals AI × Stanford LegalBench across 124 models, Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark, the Atticus Project's CUAD/MAUD/ACORD) plus translation evidence (WMT25, SwiLTra-Bench, ArabLegalEval). Covers five verticals: contract drafting, info extraction, legal research, contract review, and legal translation (including Arabic/MENA). Each asks up to four questions (cost, speed, accuracy/stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/language), then returns a primary model, a fallback, what to avoid, and what a human must verify. Core principle: capability is not controllability, so every route ends with a verification step. Not legal advice; a lawyer owns the output.
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 a legal document against legal design principles. Scores the document on six pillars: language patterns (bureaucratese, archaisms, passive voice, nominalization), readability (Flesch Reading Ease and language-specific equivalents), structure and navigation, hidden conditions (material obligations buried away from their headings), statutory duplication (restating the law instead of citing it), and visual hierarchy where layout is available. Assessment-only; does not rewrite the document. Works on English, French, and German documents, inferring the applicable jurisdiction from the document's language and textual signals: governing-law clause, statute citations, party addresses. Use when a user shares a legal document (contract, NDA, T&C, privacy policy, internal policy) asking how good the drafting is from a legal design perspective, whether it is readable, whether it contains buried clauses or restates the law, or how it scores on Flesch / LIX / Amstad / Kandel-Moles readability metrics.
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。
Produces properly-formatted legal documents in Word (.docx). The user provides the substantive content (instructions, attached files, project knowledge); the skill handles document architecture and formatting. * No precedent or template required * Seven document families: agreements, corporate documents, litigation, memos, employment, policies, correspondence * Jurisdiction-agnostic — works across any legal system the user specifies * Multi-Chain numbering, defined-terms convention, structured recitals, atomic signature blocks * Also reformats existing .docx to a consistent house style * Works in Claude.ai, Cowork, and Claude for Word
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 LGPD compliance advisor for Brazil's Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados (Law 13,709/2018). Use this skill whenever a user asks about LGPD, Brazilian data protection, ANPD, personal data processing in Brazil, data subject rights under Brazilian law, legal bases for processing, sensitive data handling, DPO appointment in Brazil, data breach notification to ANPD, LGPD penalties (fines up to 2% of revenue / R$50M), international data transfers from Brazil, Brazil-EU mutual adequacy (January 2026 — SCCs/BCRs no longer needed for Brazil-EU transfers), LGPD gap assessments, privacy policy drafting for Brazilian operations, DPIA under LGPD, consent management, or comparing LGPD with GDPR. Trigger for any Brazil privacy or data protection question even if LGPD is not named explicitly.
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 this skill when asked to review, analyze, or draft a contract governed by Icelandic law. Triggers on requests involving Icelandic commercial agreements, consumer contracts, sales agreements, service contracts, or any contract where Icelandic mandatory rules may apply.
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, drafting, and analysis involving the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute system). Enforces a verification-first methodology — every case-law, decision, filing, warrant, and statement citation is verified against an authoritative primary source (icc-cpi.int, legal-tools.org) in the current conversation before it appears in an output. Foundational texts (Rome Statute, Elements of Crimes, RPE, Regulations of the Court) may be cited from project knowledge when present. Use whenever the user is working with ICC case law, OTP statements, ASP documents, or ICC procedure.
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 whether Government of India approval is required for foreign investment in an Indian company under Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and the Non-Debt Instruments Rules, 2019. The skill systematically gathers transaction details, evaluates sectoral entry routes and caps, assesses land border country restrictions under applicable laws, and delivers a preliminary compliance note. Produces clear guidance on whether the investment falls within Automatic Route or requires Government approval.
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。
Transforms reading-oriented prose into listening-optimized text for flat, neutral vocal delivery — TTS, podcasts, audiobooks, CLE audio. Carries a legal layer: case citations, section symbols, subsection lettering, Latin terms and footnotes are unspeakable as written, so a brief, opinion, statute, contract or memo needs them expanded, restructured or stripped before it can be listened to — and quoted authority is never rewritten. Use when converting written content for audio, preparing oral argument by ear, producing CLE or client-facing audio, or making a document listenable on a commute. Triggers on "make this listenable," "convert for audio," "optimize for reading aloud," "prepare for TTS," "make an audio version," "podcast script," "read this aloud." Supports English, French, Spanish, Italian, German and Portuguese; outputs plain text, ElevenLabs audio tags, or SSML for Amazon Polly, Google or Azure.
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 which of the Art. 50(1)-(5) transparency obligations of the EU AI Act apply to a given AI system's provider or deployer, grounded in the final Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content (June 2026) and the Commission's draft Art. 50 Guidelines. Covers AI-chatbot disclosure, deepfake and synthetic-content marking/watermarking, emotion-recognition and biometric-categorisation notices, the machine-readable marking duty, the obviousness exceptions, and the implementation timeline. Outputs a formal mini-report plus a per-obligation compliance checklist with gap flags. For breadth-first tier triage use the EU AI Act System Classifier; for raw Art. 50 text and Q&A use the EU AI Act Knowledge Base; for the full role x tier matrix use the EU AI Act Obligations Mapper.
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 (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) compliance advisor — risk classification across all four tiers, all 9 prohibited practices (Art. 5, including the nudification/CSAM prohibition from Dec 2, 2026), all 8 Annex III high-risk use case areas, provider and deployer obligations (Arts. 9–17, 26), GPAI model obligations including the July 2025 Code of Practice (Arts. 51–55), conformity assessment and CE marking (Arts. 43–48), EU AI database registration, Art. 50 transparency (chatbots, synthetic media, AI-generated content), governance (AI Office, AI Board), penalties (Art. 99), confirmed phase-in timeline (Digital Omnibus adopted June 29, 2026: Annex III deferred to Dec 2, 2027; Annex I to Aug 2, 2028), and cross-framework mapping to ISO 42001, NIST AI RMF, and GDPR. Use for any EU AI regulation, AI system classification, or AI compliance question. Current as of July 2026. GPAI enforcement powers activate August 2, 2026.
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。
Classify AI systems under the EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) and determine compliance obligations. Use when asked to assess AI risk level, check if an AI system is prohibited, determine high-risk status, identify GPAI model obligations, map provider/deployer responsibilities, or build an AI Act compliance roadmap. Covers the full classification decision tree (Prohibited → High-Risk → Limited → Minimal → GPAI), obligations by role (provider, deployer, importer, distributor), compliance timelines, and DACH-specific considerations (German works council, BaFin, BSI, BNetzA). Triggers on phrases like "classify this AI system", "is this high-risk under the AI Act", "AI Act risk assessment", "EU AI Act compliance", "prohibited AI practice", "GPAI obligations", "AI Act timeline".
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 GDPR compliance assistant covering all four core workflows: (1) auditing code and systems for GDPR violations, (2) drafting GDPR-compliant documents such as privacy policies, Data Processing Agreements (DPAs), and consent notices, (3) answering GDPR compliance questions with authoritative article citations, and (4) reviewing data flows and PII handling practices. Use this skill whenever the user mentions GDPR, data protection, privacy compliance, lawful basis, data subject rights, DPA, privacy notices, consent management, data breaches, DPIAs, controller/ processor relationships, cross-border data transfers, or any EU/UK data privacy topic. Also trigger for questions like "is this GDPR compliant?", "how do I handle personal data?", "what does a privacy policy need?", or any request involving PII, personal data, or data retention in a regulatory context.
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 the organization's role (provider, deployer, importer, distributor, or quasi-provider) and assesses Art. 25 quasi-provider risk of the EU AI Act. This skill should be used when the user asks to "determine AI Act roles", "check if we are provider or deployer", "assess quasi-provider status", "check Art. 25 substantial modification", "check value chain responsibilities", or mentions "Betreiber", "Anbieter", "wesentliche Veränderung", or finetuning implications under the AI Act.
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。
Fast 15-25 minute triage for preliminary EU AI Act classification and compliance assessment. This skill should be used when the user asks to "do a quick AI Act assessment", "check if the AI Act applies to us", "run a preliminary classification", "do an AI Act triage", "quick check", "preliminary assessment", "Schnellprüfung", "Ersteinschätzung", or needs a fast initial assessment before committing to full 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。
Maps the full set of legal obligations for the EU AI Act based on role + risk tier, producing an actionable compliance matrix with RACI assignments and implementation priorities. This skill should be used when the user asks to "map AI Act obligations", "check what we need to do under the AI Act", "create a compliance checklist", "check deployer obligations", "assess provider duties", or mentions Art. 26, Art. 16-17, AI literacy Art. 4, DPIA, fundamental rights assessment, or "Pflichtenkatalog" under the AI Act.
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。
Assess and operationalize implementation readiness for high-risk AI systems under the EU AI Act Annex III, including provider and deployer obligations, conformity assessment, post-market monitoring, and EU database registration. Use when users say things like “we classified this as high-risk, what now?”, “build an EU AI Act readiness plan”, “assess our Annex III compliance gaps”, “what do providers/deployers of high-risk AI need to implement?”, “prepare for conformity assessment”, or “create a high-risk AI implementation roadmap.”
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 a formal, structured AI Act compliance assessment report suitable for legal files, audit trails, and regulatory inquiries. This skill should be used when the user asks to "generate an AI Act report", "create a compliance assessment report", "document the AI Act analysis", "create a Prüfbericht", "export as Word document", or wants to consolidate prior AI Act skill outputs into a formal documented 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。
Outside counsel guidelines (OCGs) — drafting, review, gap analysis, and targeted updates for in-house legal teams. Build new OCGs calibrated to maturity level (light, standard, comprehensive), review existing OCGs against 15-component best practice framework, add or update specific sections (AI policy, AFA terms, D&I, rate review), and produce GC briefing notes for internal buy-in. Trigger on: 'draft billing guidelines', 'outside counsel guidelines', 'OCG', 'billing expectations', 'review our guidelines', 'update the AI clause', 'what should our billing guidelines cover', 'we don't have billing guidelines', 'firms aren't following our guidelines', 'rate review terms', 'GC briefing on billing guidelines', 'AFA policy', 'block billing', 'prohibited fees', 'staffing expectations for outside counsel'.
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。