スキルを探す

When the user wants to conduct, analyze, or synthesize customer research. Use when the user mentions "customer research," "ICP research," "talk to customers," "analyze transcripts," "customer interviews," "survey analysis," "support ticket analysis," "voice of customer," "VOC," "build personas," "customer personas," "jobs to be done," "JTBD," "what do customers say," "what are customers struggling with," "Reddit mining," "G2 reviews," "review mining," "digital watering holes," "community research," "forum research," "competitor reviews," "customer sentiment," or "find out why customers churn/convert/buy." Use for both analyzing existing research assets AND gathering new research from online sources. For writing copy informed by research, see copywriting. For acting on research to improve pages, see cro.

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 UNMIK Regulation 64 Panels of the Kosovo district courts (2000–2008). Citations are verified against UNMIK/EULEX archives and legal-tools.org. Keeps the Reg. 64 Panels distinct from the Kosovo Specialist Chambers, and clarifies that Reg. 2000/64 permitted (did not impose) internationally-majority panels. 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。

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.

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 Court for Sierra Leone and its Residual Special Court. Citations are verified against rscsl.org and legal-tools.org. Covers Taylor, the AFRC/CDF/RUF cases, the child-soldier and forced-marriage holdings, the head-of-State immunity decision, and the fixed-term (no life) penalty regime. 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。

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。

Reviews or drafts the agreement that pays an employee to settle their claims — and flags the statutory conditions that decide whether it actually binds them. Works under s.203 ERA 1996 for England & Wales. Flags apparent s.203 condition gaps for a solicitor to confirm (writing, specific complaints, independent adviser, identification, insurance, statement of conditions), drafts the substantive terms (sum, tax characterisation, confidentiality, references, restrictive covenants, indemnities), and surfaces enforceability risks. Does not rule on validity and is not legal advice. Use when the user says 'review this settlement agreement', 'draft a settlement agreement', 'compromise agreement' (old term), or asks whether an agreement is binding.

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。

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.

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。

>Ce skill génère des sujets d'entraînement pour les deux épreuves écrites de consultation du CRFPA : l'épreuve de droit des obligations (tronc commun) et l'épreuve de spécialité (civil, affaires, social, pénal, administratif, international et européen, fiscal). Chaque sujet est accompagné d'une grille de notation détaillée sur 20 points. Vous ciblez un thème précis, ou vous laissez le skill procéder à un tirage au sort couvrant l'ensemble du programme. Connexion aux MCP OpenLegi et GoodLegal requise : toutes les références d'articles et d'arrêts sont vérifiées sur les sources officielles, sans citation inventée

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 to analyze a current work session and propose improvements to skills. Use (1) automatically after working with a skill to capture learnings, (2) when the user suggests improvements, corrections, or additions during a skill-related session, or (3) when the user manually invokes `self-improve`.

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。

Verifies UK case-law citations, pinpoint references and quotations against the official public register — The National Archives' Find Case Law — and statutory references against legislation.gov.uk, before a document that cites them is relied on, served or filed. Every check returns a graded verdict: VERIFIED, MISMATCH (the citation resolves to a different case — the classic AI miscitation), NOT ON REGISTER, OUTSIDE COVERAGE (the register cannot answer — absence proves nothing), or UNCHECKABLE (a law-report citation). The grading exists because there are two ways to get this wrong: citing a case that does not exist, and accusing a real case of not existing. Use when asked to check citations, verify a case exists, confirm a quotation is verbatim, check a pinpoint paragraph, audit a draft's authorities, screen a document for hallucinated cases, or check a statutory provision is in force. Not a substitute for reading the judgment: existence is not authority.

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。

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.

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。

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。

Verification-first methodology for the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. Citations are verified against the STL legacy archive and legal-tools.org. Covers the Ayyash et al. case, the two contempt cases (STL-14-05 New TV/Al-Khayat and STL-14-06 Akhbar Beirut/Al-Amin), and the 2011 terrorism decision. 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。

Verification-first methodology for the Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz (JEP), Colombia's transitional justice court under the 2016 Acuerdo Final with FARC-EP. Citations are verified against jep.gov.co before use. Covers the 11 macrocasos (from Caso 01 secuestro through Caso 11 violencia sexual, including Caso 03 falsos positivos), the three sanction tiers (propias, alternativas, ordinarias), TOAR, and the SIVJRNR sister bodies (CEV, UBPD). Guards the key structural distinctions (Sala de Reconocimiento vs Tribunal para la Paz; comparecientes FARC-EP vs Fuerza Pública vs terceros civiles; Acto Legislativo 01/2017 vs Ley Estatutaria 1957/2019). Research aid, 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 post-WWII tribunals: the IMT at Nuremberg, the twelve Nuremberg Military Tribunals, and the IMTFE at Tokyo. Citations are verified against the official records (Blue/Green Series, Pritchard-Zaide) and the digital archives (Avalon, Harvard NTP, UVA IMTFE). Guards the four classic traps (IMT vs NMT; Nuremberg vs Tokyo; Charter article numbers; majority judgment vs separate opinions, e.g. the Pal dissent). 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。

Recherche académique dans les bases de données de doctrine juridique française, européenne et internationale. Utiliser cette skill lorsque l'utilisateur demande de rechercher des articles de doctrine, des thèses, des ouvrages académiques, ou des travaux universitaires en droit — y compris en droit comparé. Sources principales : ISIDORE (agrégateur SHS du CNRS incluant Cairn.info, Persée, OpenEdition), HAL (archive ouverte française), OpenAlex (base ouverte mondiale 250M+ travaux), Semantic Scholar, CrossRef, Persée (OAI direct), et CORE. Couvre la doctrine juridique francophone ET internationale avec workflow bilingue intégré pour le droit comparé. Déclencher aussi pour : bibliographie commentée, état de l'art, revue de littérature juridique, recherche d'auteur, vérification de citation, analyse bibliométrique.

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 find, cite, analyze, or summarize Icelandic court decisions. Triggers on requests involving Hæstiréttur (Supreme Court), Landsréttur (Court of Appeal), Félagsdómur (Labour Court), héraðsdómur (District Court) case law, or Icelandic legal precedent research.

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。

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。

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。

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。

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。

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。

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。