Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

giurisprudenza-lampo

Ricerca giurisprudenziale rapida per ottenere un quadro di orientamento iniziale su un tema giuridico. Si attiva con "giurisprudenza-lampo [tema]", "cerca giurisprudenza su [tema]", "sentenze su [tema]", "pronunce su [tema]", "orientamento giurisprudenziale su [tema]", o qualsiasi variante che chieda di cercare sentenze, pronunce, massime, orientamenti giurisprudenziali o precedenti su un argomento giuridico. Usa questa skill anche quando l'utente dice "cosa dice la giurisprudenza su", "ci sono sentenze su", "precedenti su", "come si è espressa la Cassazione/il TAR/il Consiglio di Stato su".

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

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Files included (2)

  • SKILL.md2.0 KB
  • README.md448 B

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Stai eseguendo una ricerca giurisprudenziale rapida. L'obiettivo è un quadro di orientamento iniziale, non un parere esaustivo.

Invocazione

"giurisprudenza-lampo [tema giuridico]".

Step 1: Ricerca

Cerca sul web pronunce recenti e rilevanti sul tema. Fonti prioritarie: DeJure, Italgiure, siti istituzionali dei TAR e del Consiglio di Stato, Corte di Cassazione, riviste giuridiche online (Altalex, Diritto.it, Giurisprudenza Penale, Foro Italiano). Cerca almeno 3-5 pronunce se disponibili.

Step 2: Quadro

Tema

[1-2 frasi. La questione giuridica esaminata.]

Pronunce trovate

Per ogni pronuncia rilevante:

  • Estremi: [Autorità, sezione, data, numero]
  • Massima sintetica: [1-2 frasi sul principio affermato]
  • Rilevanza: [perché conta per il caso in esame]

Orientamento prevalente

[1 paragrafo. Come si orienta la giurisprudenza maggioritaria. Se c'è contrasto, segnalarlo.]

Implicazioni operative

[2-3 spunti concreti per il parere o la strategia.]

Fonti

[Link alle fonti usate.]

Step 3: Avvertenza

Concludi sempre con: "Ricerca di orientamento iniziale. Verificare gli estremi e completare con ricerca su banche dati specializzate."

Step 4: Salva

research/giurisprudenza-[tema-slug]-[YYYY-MM-DD].md

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Public-safe preliminary screen for challenges to the impartiality of an AI evaluator, LLM-as-a-judge, decision-support agent, or adjudicative system based on prior outputs, suspected bias, unstable reasoning, or self-reinforcing memory. Use when asked whether an AI should be recused, disqualified, replaced, audited, or escalated. Does not decide real cases or claim that human judicial-recusal doctrine automatically applies.

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

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills894Updated Oct 20, 2026

Creates an Agent Authority Charter for enterprise or regulated AI agents before deployment. Use this Skill when a user needs to define what an AI agent is allowed to do, who delegated authority to it, what actions are permitted or prohibited, when human approval is required, what evidence must be preserved, and how the agent can be suspended, revoked, or escalated.

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

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills894Updated Oct 20, 2026

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.

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

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills894Updated Oct 20, 2026

This skill builds a structured audit trail of an AI-assisted task: what the tool was asked to do, what materials it was given, what it produced, how the output was verified, and what was ultimately relied upon. It documents the workflow for supervision and later review without ruling on privilege or disclosure, so the record stays accurate rather than self-serving.

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

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills894Updated Oct 20, 2026

Use this skill when the user wants an AI governance, legal-risk, privacy, compliance, procurement, or vendor-risk review of an internal AI use case, an AI product feature, an LLM workflow, or a third-party AI vendor. The skill asks intake and clarifying questions first when facts or evidence are missing, identifies required documentation and missing evidence, maps the use case to AI governance frameworks and applicable legal domains, and produces a preliminary or final governance review with scorecards, findings, owners, remediation actions, and follow-up questions.

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

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills894Updated Oct 20, 2026

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.

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills894Updated Oct 20, 2026

See all skills by lawve-ai

Report a problem with this skill