スキルを探す

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。

Expert SOC 2 compliance assistant covering all five Trust Services Criteria (Security/CC, Availability/A, Confidentiality/C, Processing Integrity/PI, Privacy/P). Use this skill whenever a user mentions SOC 2, Trust Services Criteria, SOC 2 Type 1 or Type 2, audit readiness, compliance gaps, control documentation, evidence collection, vendor risk questionnaires, or anything related to AICPA service organization controls. Trigger even for adjacent topics like "we need to get audited", "a customer asked for our security report", "writing an information security policy", or "preparing for an audit". Covers gap analysis, policy writing, control documentation, audit evidence preparation, and vendor risk reviews for organizations at any maturity level — from first-time startups to seasoned compliance teams.

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。

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。

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。

Expert Section 508 compliance advisor for US federal ICT accessibility. Use this skill whenever a user asks about Section 508, WCAG 2.0/2.1 AA for federal systems, VPAT or Accessibility Conformance Reports (ACR), accessibility audits, remediation planning, PDF accessibility, web or software accessibility, mobile accessibility, federal procurement accessibility requirements, contractor obligations, undue burden exceptions, assistive technology compatibility, or Section 508 testing. Covers the Revised Section 508 Standards (2018), all WCAG 2.0 Level AA success criteria, the four POUR principles, testing methodologies, and agency compliance workflows. Trigger even if the user doesn't say "skill" — any Section 508 or ICT accessibility question for federal systems should 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。

Guide for creating effective skills. Use when users want to create a new skill (or update an existing skill) that extends the model's capabilities with specialized knowledge, workflows, or tool integrations.

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。

Adjudicates whether a hit generated by sanctions, PEP, or adverse-media screening is a true positive, false positive, or requires human escalation. Use whenever a user presents a screening alert, a name match against a watchlist (OFAC SDN, EU consolidated list, UK OFSI, UN list, PEP list, adverse media hit, etc.), or asks to clear a screening hit / reduce false positives / determine whether a flagged name is actually the listed party. Use even when the user describes the task casually — "is this person actually on the sanctions list", "did we get a real match", "clear this alert", "I have a hit on X" — these are all screening-adjudication tasks. Produces a deterministic determination with full audit trail (structured JSON + human-readable narrative). Designed for use by compliance analysts and screening systems.

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, report, and manage serious incidents involving high-risk AI systems under Article 73 EU AI Act. Covers incident qualification, deadline buckets (2/10/15 days), authority notification, deployer duties (Art. 26(5)), cross-regulation mapping (GDPR/NIS2/MDR), corrective measures, and DACH-specific routing. Use when asked to evaluate whether an AI incident is reportable, draft an Article 73 notification, identify the right authority, or build an AI incident response process.

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。

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。

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。

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。

Draft matter status reports from emails, call notes, and updates. Internal and client-facing formats, RAG logic, variance commentary, escalation flags. Use when asked to draft a status report, write a project update, summarise matter progress, prepare a client report, create a weekly or monthly update, convert emails into a status summary, or produce any kind of matter reporting. Also triggers when the user pastes email threads and asks what the status is, or needs to turn internal updates into client-facing 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。

Guide to analyze multiple documents (PDF, DOCX) against user-defined columns and produce a structured Excel output with citations. Use when the user wants to: (1) Extract specific information from multiple documents into a table, (2) Compare clauses or provisions across contracts, (3) Create a document review matrix with source citations. Triggers on: 'tabular review', 'document matrix', 'extract from documents', 'compare across documents', 'review multiple contracts'.

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。

This skill stress-tests a proposed settlement position before an offer goes out or comes back: the assumptions it depends on, your leverage and the opponent’s, the evidential weaknesses, the likely opponent response, and the timing and costs pressures around it. It structures settlement judgment for a better-informed decision; it does not advise whether to settle.

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 legal AI skills, prompts, workflows, MCP/tool instructions, and agent packages for prompt injection, malicious instructions, unsafe scripts, suspicious metadata, credential exposure, exfiltration paths, persistence mechanisms, and supply-chain risk. Use before installing, importing, publishing, promoting, modifying, or trusting third-party or generated AI skills and legal workflows. Do not use as a generic code review unless skill trust, workflow safety, prompt injection, or supply-chain hygiene is in scope.

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。

Wyszukiwanie, pobieranie i analiza aktów prawnych UE oraz polskich aktów i projektów wdrażających regulacje UE (np. PPWR, CBAM, EUDR, ESPR, CSRD, CSDDD, GPSR, AI Act, baterie, ekoprojekt). Używaj, gdy użytkownik potrzebuje statusu prawnego, dat stosowania, przepisów przejściowych, relacji aktów, obowiązków compliance i raportu z podstawami prawnymi oraz źródłami urzędowymi.

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。

Create original, competition-ready commercial mediation problems and confidential packets with iterative validation. Use when a user provides a topic, industry, dispute sketch, or existing general-information packet and wants a public packet plus confidential packets for both sides—or one named side. Build a narrow but workable settlement corridor; verify factual and numerical consistency, information asymmetry, balance, originality, and commercial feasibility; and revise until deterministic and semantic exit criteria pass. Do not use merely to summarize an existing packet or to advise parties in a real dispute. Requires local file access; Python 3 is recommended for bundled deterministic checks, with disclosed manual fallbacks when unavailable.

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。

Evaluate completed mediation-competition problems consisting of general information and confidential packets for both sides. Use when asked to validate, audit, score, quality-control, or assess competition readiness; identify factual, numerical, chronological, authority, commercial-logic, or confidentiality defects; test mediation usefulness, BATNAs, settlement corridors, information asymmetry, and opportunities for firmness, cooperation, imagination, and clarification; or produce an author-only validation report. Perform a qualified partial review when packets are missing. Diagnose by default; do not generate a new problem or edit source packets unless repairs are expressly requested. Requires access to all supplied files and a host capable of reading their formats; otherwise disclose the unreviewed material and resulting limits.

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。

Performs a legal compliance audit for a Moroccan e-commerce website, focused on personal data protection (Law 09-08) and consumer contract disclosures/obligations (Law 31-08). Use this skill when a user asks to audit, check, or assess the legal compliance of an e-commerce website operating in Morocco — presence and validity of Terms & Conditions, privacy policy, CNDP declaration, mandatory disclosures, right of withdrawal, consent banner. Out of scope: compliance for other countries, Meta/Google advertising compliance (covered by another skill), definitive legal advice (results are a starting point for professional review, 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。

Matter scoping across the full pre-execution arc — organise client data into a structured brief, capture the agreed baseline, or reconstruct scope mid-flight. Use when making sense of client information before a proposal, scoping a new matter, running a kickoff, defining scope, mapping stakeholders, or inheriting a matter mid-flight. Trigger on: 'make sense of this', 'structure this for the proposal', 'scope this matter', 'new matter', 'kickoff', 'what are we doing', 'who are the stakeholders', 'what does success look like', 'matter setup', 'intake', 'I've inherited this matter', 'organise this client 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。