Results for “statute”

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.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Statute and regulation interpretation framework. Use when reading statutes, classifying requirements, analyzing operative keywords, applying canons of construction, or mapping compliance obligations from legislative text.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

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.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Research U.S. legal questions using Westlaw materials, including cases, statutes, and administrative decisions. Receive a written report analyzing relevant legal authorities, with support for questions covering up to three jurisdictions.

• Researching how courts have ruled on a legal issue
• Checking claim elements and available defenses
• Examining how statutes and regulations are applied

Build a starting roadmap for student legal research, including likely statutes, case law topics, background sources, and search terms. Review uploaded research for gaps, while clearly marking suggested citations as unverified leads that students must investigate themselves.

• Find a starting point for researching a legal issue
• Develop search queries for Westlaw or CourtListener
• Identify gaps in research already completed

Pick the right LLM for LEGAL TRANSLATION — translating contracts, statutes, case law, and legal correspondence across languages, including Arabic/MENA. Vendor-neutral routing triangulated from mid-2026 evidence (WMT25 human eval, SwiLTra-Bench legal-MT, multilingual-reasoning proxies, ArabLegalEval). There is NO clean legal-translation leaderboard, so this vertical is directional and treats human legal-linguist review as mandatory. Asks up to 4 quick questions (language pair, cost, speed, privacy/certification), then recommends a primary model + fallback + what to avoid + what a human must verify. Use when someone asks "which model to translate this contract/statute", "best AI for legal translation", "translate this legal doc to/from Arabic", or is about to machine-translate legal text without a fixed model.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Turns a legal question, a set of draft questions, or source material such as a statute, jury instruction, rubric, contract checklist, or coding manual into a battery of narrow questions that TypeSafe's Jev, a fast classifier that returns probabilities rather than prose, can answer reliably across many documents. The skill breaks conclusions such as negligence, felony murder, or standing into element-level questions, writes the governing rule into each question, and delivers the questions alone, in Jev's request format or in plain English. Built for legal work that asks the same questions of many texts: coding statutes across jurisdictions, coding opinions or case files for empirical research, checking contracts against a review checklist, screening intake narratives, and grading student work against a rubric. Use when asked to write Jev questions, build a classifier for legal documents, or turn a legal test into yes-or-no questions. Running the questions requires Jev access; writing them does not.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

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.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Adversarially stress-tests a legal text — a contract, statute, regulation, or judicial opinion — for interpretive ambiguity: it finds the seams where the people governed by it will later disagree about what it means and turns each into a concrete dispute scenario with both sides' arguments, the likely outcome, and a fix. Use it whenever someone wants to pressure-test, red-team, audit, or find weak spots, loopholes, gaps, ambiguities, or drafting problems in a legal document; whenever a drafter wants to tighten a contract, statute, regulation, or opinion before it issues; whenever a litigator wants to mine an opinion or contract for arguments; or whenever someone hands over a legal text and asks where it will be fought over or for issue-spotting. Trigger it for contract review, statutory-ambiguity analysis, judicial-opinion scope analysis, and drafting QA — even if the user never says "stress-test" or "ambiguity."

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Legal research on a specific question — case law, statutes, regulatory guidance. Use when asked to "research this legal question", "what does case law say", or "find the relevant statute".

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Points to the standalone module law-checker ("Legal Department"): source-grounded AI first-look legal assessments for German law with a statute registry and a statute-embodiment agent. Use this skill when a situation, contract, official notice, or legal question under German law should be checked with exact citations (article/section, paragraph, sentence) -- with a clear boundary: AI-assisted first orientation, not a substitute for a lawyer.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

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.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

A zero-hallucination privacy-policy generator that takes anyone — non-lawyer founder to lawyer — from a guided intake to a publishable, jurisdiction-aware privacy policy. Jurisdiction-first: it detects which laws apply from where your users are, then drafts only the required clauses — GDPR/EU + UK, US (CCPA/CPRA, ~20 state laws, COPPA, sector overlays), and global/MENA (LGPD, Quebec Law 25, India DPDP, China PIPL, UAE/DIFC, Saudi PDPL), plus app-store, cookies, and AI/EU AI Act disclosures. Its rule: state only what you confirm; never invent a statute, citation, fine, or date — every claim is source-cited and QA-gated. Not legal advice.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Search and cite French case law and statutes with the LibreJustice MCP tools. Use whenever the user asks about French or European court decisions (Cour de cassation, Conseil d'État, cours d'appel, TJ/TA, CNDA, Conseil constitutionnel, CNIL, CEDH, CJUE), needs authorities for a brief, requête, référé or consultation, wants to check how courts rule on an issue, needs counts of decisions on a point, or asks what a code article says at a given date, even if they never mention LibreJustice.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

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.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

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.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

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).

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

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.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Turn an interpretive-ambiguity audit of a legal text — contract, statute, regulation, or judicial opinion — into a polished deliverable. Produces a multi-page website (default), a single-page interactive site, a Microsoft Word document, a PowerPoint deck, or a LaTeX/PDF. Use whenever a user has a stress-test result, ambiguity audit, or "where will this be litigated" scenarios and wants to publish, present, or share them. Triggers on "publish the audit," "make a report from this," "turn this into a website / deck / brief / Word doc," "make a Netlify site," "build slides of these ambiguities," "render the scenarios," "package this stress test," "produce a LaTeX version," and similar. Pairs with the ambiguity-stress-test skill (the underlying analysis) but works on any structured or semi-structured ambiguity analysis. Visual design is opinionated but the user can override colors, fonts, and brand label. Most formats need Python and a writable filesystem; single-file HTML works where the host has neither.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

用于查询、检索、核验、下载、导出、批量采集中国官方法律法规、规章、条约和具体法条。Use this skill aggressively when the user asks to 查法律、查法规、查条例、查规章、查条约、查法条、查第几条、找法律依据、引用法律依据、核验现行有效、判断是否废止/已修改/尚未生效、下载法规全文、导出法规目录、批量下载法规文件、按关键词检索具体法条、展开法条分析，或在中国法律咨询、案例分析、合规审查、合同审查、劳动争议、行政法分析、公司合规、数据合规、政策研究中需要调用、核验或引用中国现行有效法律法规原文作为依据。Trigger also when phrases such as 依法、依规、依照法律规定、法律法规 imply a need to verify specific statutory authority or article-level text. Covers 国家法律法规数据库 (flk.npc.gov.cn), 国家规章库 (gov.cn), 外交条约库 (treaty.mfa.gov.cn), 国务院政策文件库 (sousuo.www.gov.cn), 司法部行政法规库 (xzfg.moj.gov.cn), 党内法规库 (12371.cn), 国防部法规文库 (mod.gov.cn), 税务法规库 (fgk.chinatax.gov.cn), 生态环境部法规规章 (mee.gov.cn), and 最高人民法院发布栏目 (court.gov.cn). Supports 标题/正文检索, 精确/模糊检索, 时效性过滤, 分类过滤, 分页, 排序, 单篇下载, 批量下载, 法条级抽取, 地区/制定机关分类, and browser fallback. Trigger when the answer may depend on current effective Chinese statutes, regulations, rules, treaties, article text, official document status, or official source attribution. Do not use for purely general legal theory, generic writing, or legal reasoning that does not require retrieving or verifying official Chinese legal documents.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Expert legal research agent for finding and scraping expungement data state by state. Knows authoritative sources, URL patterns, Firecrawl configuration, and 2026 legal landscape. Activate on "find expungement data", "scrape state laws", "legal research", "court URLs", "statute sources", "Clean Slate laws", "automatic expungement research". NOT for interpreting laws (use national-expungement-expert), building UI, or legal advice.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Produces internal case viability and conflict check memos for personal injury litigation intake. Screens conflicts, assesses liability and damages, checks statute of limitations, and outputs an accept/decline recommendation. Use when evaluating new PI intake, running conflict checks, assessing case merit pre-filing, or preparing acceptance memos.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Drafts legally compliant data breach notification letters to affected consumers under multi-state and federal statutes (HIPAA, GLBA, state AG requirements). Use when drafting breach notices, security incident consumer notifications, or data compromise letters.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Generates structured U.S. art law summaries with Bluebook citations, doctrinal analysis, and stakeholder guidance. Use when researching art law precedents, advising on art transactions, preparing for art market litigation, or surveying a doctrine or statute across ownership, provenance, copyright, VARA, NAGPRA, authentication, NFTs, or AI-generated art.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.