スキルを探す

Expert WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) advisor covering WCAG 2.0, 2.1, and 2.2 — the W3C international accessibility standards. Use this skill whenever a user asks about WCAG success criteria, conformance levels (A/AA/AAA), accessibility audits, POUR principles, accessibility statements, ARIA patterns, colour contrast, keyboard accessibility, screen reader compatibility, mobile accessibility, cognitive accessibility, WCAG 2.2 new criteria, WCAG 3.0 preview, legal requirements referencing WCAG (EN 301 549, EAA, ADA, Section 508), or mapping WCAG to accessibility laws. Trigger for any web or digital content accessibility question — even if the user doesn't say "skill" or "WCAG".

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 (a) auditing an existing whistleblower system or (b) drafting a compliant reporting policy from a provided template. Covers EU Directive 2019/1937, the amended Sapin II law (Waserman 2022), Decree 2022-1284, CNIL guidelines, public sector requirements, and duty of vigilance.

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。

Toolkit for comprehensive document reading, editing, and creation with visual quality control. Use to work with Word documents (.docx files) for: (1) Reading or extracting content from existing DOCX files, (2) Creating new Word documents with professional formatting, (3) Editing documents requiring precise typography and layout, or any other DOCX reading or generation tasks.

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 CONTRACT DRAFTING — generating, redlining, or rewriting contract language from instructions. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 legal benchmarks (legalbenchmarks.ai Contract Drafting). 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 should I use to draft this clause/agreement", "best AI for drafting contracts", "route this drafting task", or is about to generate/redline contract text and hasn't fixed a 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 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。

Build VS Code extensions from scratch or convert existing JS/React/Vue apps. Supports commands, webviews (React/Vue), custom editors, tree views, and AI agent integration via file-bridge IPC. Use when user wants to create a VS Code extension, convert a web app to an extension, add webviews or custom UIs to VS Code, implement tree views, build custom file editors, integrate with AI agents, or package/publish extensions (.vsix).

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。

Controlla coerenza e plausibilità delle citazioni normative italiane ed europee in un testo prodotto da un'altra skill legal-tech (o passato dall'avvocato). Verifica formato, esistenza apparente, coerenza interna, segnala citazioni sospette o non risolvibili. Usa quando una skill IT/EU ha appena prodotto un output con riferimenti normativi, o quando l'avvocato chiede esplicitamente "verifica le fonti", "controlla le citazioni", "queste citazioni reggono?".

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。

Edit, query, and transform Word documents (.docx) with the SuperDoc CLI. Use when the user asks to read, search, modify, format, comment, track changes, or review changes in .docx files. Triggers on any task involving Word documents — text replacement, redlining, contract markup, template filling, bulk edits, content extraction, or document review.

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。

Drafts a customized Customer Agreement starting from the Y Combinator standard form SaaS template. Tailors the agreement through structured intake questions covering fee structure, data handling, ML rights, implementation services, and more. Applies 18 always-on defaults that transform the raw YC form into a professional starting point (renamed to "Customer Agreement", data privacy section added, warranty restructured, consolidated SLA/support exhibit, etc.). Produces a clean .docx and a lawyer-facing memo explaining every change from the YC standard. Use when user says "draft a SaaS agreement", "YC SaaS", "startup SaaS contract", "customer agreement", "SaaS subscription agreement", or "I need a SaaS agreement starting from the YC form". Also trigger when the user is a startup founder discussing SaaS contracting, even if they don't mention YC specifically.

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 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.

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 CONTRACT REVIEW — reviewing an existing agreement for risk, deviations from standard, missing protections, and internal contradictions, and proposing redlines. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 legal benchmarks. Contract review is a COMPOSITE skill (extraction + reasoning + redlining + conflict-detection), so this routes by the dominant sub-task. 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 to review this contract / NDA / MSA", "best AI to redline", "route this contract review", or is about to review an agreement 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。

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。

Pick the right LLM for LEGAL INFO EXTRACTION — pulling facts, clauses, dates, parties, obligations, and structured fields out of contracts and legal documents. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 benchmarks (legalbenchmarks.ai Info Extraction; CUAD/MAUD/ACORD). 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 should I use to extract clauses/data from these documents", "best AI for contract data extraction", "route this extraction task", or is about to pull structured fields from legal docs 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。

Edit, query, and transform Word documents with the SuperDoc CLI v1 operation surface. Use when the user asks to read, search, modify, comment, or review changes in .docx files.

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。

Writes a settlement letter on the right footing — and warns you when marking it 'without prejudice' won't actually keep it out of court. A genuine settlement letter is normally protected (the judge can't see it), but only if the substance is a real attempt to settle, and even then there are exceptions. The skill picks the correct footing — without prejudice (WP), without prejudice save as to costs (WPSATC / Calderbank), or open — drafts the finished letter, and surfaces the Unilever v Procter & Gamble exceptions that get WP material admitted despite the label, which a plain template won't flag. Built for juniors and in-house counsel drafting a settlement or Calderbank offer who need the footing right the first time. Use when the user asks to draft a WP letter, a Calderbank, a settlement letter, or wants to know whether material is likely protected from disclosure.

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。

Risk-based vendor assessment framework for IT service providers, technology vendors, and third-party partners under DORA, NIS2, GDPR. Provides three-phase process (Initial Screening / Detailed Assessment / Final Evaluation), six-dimension risk scoring (Financial/Operational/Compliance/Security/Reputational/Strategic) with weighted matrices, full DORA Art. 28-30 contractual checklist, NIS2 Art. 21(2) security measures enumeration, GDPR Art. 28 documentation checks, red flags per dimension, trigger-based review criteria, and document templates. Use when: (1) Evaluating new vendors or technology providers, (2) Conducting critical ICT third-party due diligence under DORA, (3) Performing supply chain security assessment under NIS2, (4) Creating vendor onboarding documentation, (5) Establishing ongoing vendor monitoring, (6) Assessing concentration risk, or (7) Generating executive vendor risk reports.

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 Vietnam Personal Data Protection Law (PDPL) compliance advisor for Law No. 91/2025/QH15 and implementing Decree 356/2025/ND-CP (effective January 1, 2026). Use this skill for gap analysis against the Vietnam PDPL, data subject rights fulfilment workflows, cross-border data transfer impact assessments, privacy notices and internal policies, breach notification procedures, sector-specific obligations (finance, AI, cloud, blockchain), and DPO qualification reviews. Trigger whenever a user mentions Vietnam data privacy, VN-PDPL, Nghị định 356, Vietnamese personal data, or cross-border transfers involving Vietnamese citizens' data.

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。

Use when an application or system — including one built quickly with AI coding agents — needs a security review with regulatory grounding: a STRIDE threat model, a LINDDUN privacy threat model, a dependency exposure screen against live CVE / CISA-KEV / EPSS data, or a selected, non-exhaustive screen of which EU security obligations (GDPR, NIS2, Cyber Resilience Act, AI Act) may apply and which need determination. Orchestrates the server-enforced threat-modeling workflows of the Ansvar Gateway MCP connector and grounds every regulatory statement in officially published text fetched at answer time — scope, role, and application-date limits stated, never a compliance verdict. Never simulates a workflow and never answers legal questions from model memory.

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。

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。

Team structure, gearing analysis, continuity planning, and competing demand management for legal matters. Use when setting up a matter team, reviewing whether work is being done at the right grade, planning cover for an unavailable team member, or managing a resource conflict across matters. Trigger on: 'who should be on this matter', 'team structure', 'gearing', 'right people at the right level', 'partner is doing associate work', 'cover for maternity leave', 'who has capacity', 'team member leaving', 'over-allocated', 'staffing conflict', 'pinch point', 'capacity problem', 'how do we resource this', 'team too senior', 'team too junior'.

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。

Ricerca giuridica su fonti italiane e UE: normativa, prassi e giurisprudenza in ogni materia (civile, penale, amministrativo, lavoro, tributario e specialistiche). Usare quando l'utente chiede di trovare, inquadrare o citare una norma ("cosa dice l'articolo...", "quale legge disciplina...", "è ancora in vigore...", "che estremi ha..."), cercare sentenze, massime o orientamenti, verificare la vigenza di una disposizione, verificare una citazione o l'esistenza di una pronuncia ("questa sentenza esiste?", "controlla le citazioni di questo atto"), cercare precedenti a favore e contro una tesi ("conformi e difformi", "sentenze pro e contro"), trovare un CCNL o le decisioni di ABF, ACF, AGCM o del Garante, creare un documento fondato su fonti (atti, pareri, clausole, contratti, memorie, diffide), o impostare una strategia processuale ("come imposto la causa", "come gestiresti questo caso", "conviene agire o transigere"), anche quando la fonte non è nominata. Non usare per domande non giuridiche.

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。

RAID log methodology with decision extraction from emails and meeting notes. Use when asked to identify risks, log assumptions, track issues, extract decisions from correspondence, create or update a RAID log, escalate a risk to an issue, assess project risks, validate or challenge assumptions, or capture scope-relevant decisions. Also triggers when the user pastes email chains and asks what decisions were made, or needs to find buried decisions and untested assumptions in correspondence. Trigger on: 'risk report', 'RAID log', 'what are the risks', 'what decisions were made', 'update the risk register', 'what assumptions are we making', 'what could go wrong', 'flag any issues', 'extract decisions from these emails'.

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。