「eu」の検索結果

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。

Generates standalone interactive HTML "deal cards" that translate complex regulations into negotiation-ready reference tools, systematically distinguishing mandatory obligations from negotiable implementation choices. Use when the user needs an interactive regulatory guide for (1) contract negotiation support, (2) client education or internal training, (3) regulatory briefings for commercial stakeholders, or (4) structured comparison between required and flexible compliance paths. Primary focus on EU digital regulation (Data Act, AI Act, CRA, DORA, NIS2, GDPR) but the structural pattern transfers to any regulation where separating hard obligations from implementation choice is the point. Supports bilingual output where the jurisdiction calls for it.

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。

Critically assess and improve a legal scholarly thesis, article idea, student note, seminar-paper claim, or research agenda using Eugene Volokh's novelty, nonobviousness, utility, and soundness framework, connector-aware research, claim-specific tests, and a sustainable adversarial pass. Produces a self-contained green-, yellow-, or red-light report. Use when a law professor or law student asks whether a claim is viable, novel, publishable, preempted, useful, worth pursuing, or better than competing topics; or wants a thesis stress-tested, narrowed, repaired, or compared. No connector is required: use connected legal and scholarly research when available, public sources otherwise, and disclose any no-research fallback.

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。

Rédaction de requêtes devant le Conseil de prud'hommes pour contester un licenciement pour faute grave. Utiliser ce skill quand l'utilisateur demande de rédiger une requête CPH, contester un licenciement pour faute grave, préparer une saisine du CPH pour un litige lié à un licenciement, ou créer un document de contestation de licenciement en droit du travail français.

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。

Screen a client, counterparty, payer or corporate against the sanctions lists published by the designating authorities themselves — the UK Sanctions List (FCDO), OFSI, the UN Security Council, the EU consolidated list and OFAC's SDN and non-SDN lists. Use when onboarding, before taking a payment, before completing a transaction, or whenever a name must be checked against sanctions. Produces candidates and provenance, never a clearance: the record names every list searched with its publication date and count, states what was NOT searched, and ends at a blank decision block. Fails closed — a cache that is missing, damaged, truncated or stale is reported NOT SEARCHED and the process exits non-zero, so nothing can read an incomplete run as clean. Matches across transliteration, diacritics, homoglyphs and initials, because nobody spells a name the way the publisher does. Standard library only; screening opens no network connection.

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。

Generate a spreadsheet of test entries — newly designated names from OFAC, OFSI, and EU sanctions lists plus deliberate variations of those names — to validate that a sanctions screening system catches fresh designations and is tuned to the right fuzziness threshold. Use this whenever the user asks for sanctions list update test data, screening regression test data, screening QA, fuzzy match calibration, or wants to verify their screening lists are current. Trigger even if the user doesn't say 'screening' explicitly — phrases like 'test my sanctions list', 'check our SDN coverage', 'is my list up to date', or 'build me a regression set from the latest designations' should also invoke 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。

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.

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 NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) advisor covering all four functions: GOVERN, MAP, MEASURE, MANAGE. Use this skill whenever a user asks about NIST AI RMF, AI risk management, AI trustworthiness, GOVERN function, MAP function, MEASURE function, MANAGE function, AI RMF Playbook, AI risk profiles, responsible AI, AI bias management, AI transparency, AI explainability, AI reliability, AI safety, NIST AI 100-1, AI risk assessment, AI incident response, or alignment to EU AI Act, ISO 42001, or NIST CSF via AI RMF. Trigger even if the user doesn't say "skill" — any NIST AI RMF or AI governance risk question 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 pour la rédaction de notifications de licenciement conformes au droit du travail français. Utiliser ce skill quand l'utilisateur demande de rédiger, préparer, créer ou éditer une lettre de notification de licenciement, notamment pour faute grave, faute lourde ou motif personnel. Le skill guide la collecte d'informations précises et la rédaction d'une notification juridiquement solide avec tous les éléments obligatoires du droit français.

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。

Turn a lawyer's bounded expertise, workflow, review standard, or legal judgment pattern into a safe, inspectable legal AI skill. Use when a user provides legal memos, comments, checklists, negotiation notes, review habits, compliance playbooks, or professional feedback and wants a reusable Lawve-style skill. Do not impersonate the lawyer or claim to reproduce a person; distill only authorized, source-bounded capability.

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。

Assistant académique pour enseignants-chercheurs en droit. Six tâches : (1) recherche juridique approfondie avec accent doctrinal, (2) relecture de documents avec vérification des références, commentaires Word, détection d'indices de plagiat/IA et cohérence argumentative, (3) création de sujets et corrigés d'exercices juridiques universitaires, (4) mise à jour de cours, ouvrages et documents juridiques, (5) création de cours avec support docx et PPTX, (6) préparation de fiches de TD. MCP : OpenLegi, Themia, LegalDataHunter. Déclencher pour toute demande liée à l'enseignement ou la recherche en droit : cours, TD, fiches de TD, examens, sujets, corrigés, relecture, mise à jour, recherche doctrinale. NE PAS déclencher pour les QCM (utiliser qcm-generator).

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。

Helps a lawyer build and use a personalized Legal Guidance Vault — a local folder of structured, privilege-marked entries capturing legal guidance they've given, searchable later by topic, person, or product. Use this skill when the user says "set up my vault," "archive this meeting/email/thread/doc," "log the guidance I gave on [topic]," "save my notes from [meeting]," "what did I say about [topic]," "find the time I advised [person] on [topic]," or "search my vault for [topic]." Runs a setup interview to learn the user's tool stack (meeting notes, calendar, email, docs, messaging, vault location), then generates a customized vault prompt they can reuse in any future Claude session to start archiving and retrieving guidance.

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。

GDPR Legitimate Interest Assessment (LIA) — Guided assessment for Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR using the EDPB three-step test. Based on EDPB Guidelines 1/2024, EDPB Opinion 28/2024 (AI models), the OSS Case Digest on Legitimate Interest (McIntyre 2026), CNIL AI guidance (June 2025), ICO guidance, and key CJEU case law. Use when: (1) user needs to assess whether legitimate interest is appropriate, (2) user asks about Art. 6(1)(f), "Interessenabwägung", "berechtigtes Interesse", "balancing test", or "LIA", (3) user wants to document a legitimate interest assessment, (4) user mentions the three-step test, (5) user evaluates necessity or proportionality under Art. 6(1)(f), (6) user discusses direct marketing, fraud prevention, IT security, employee monitoring, AI training, web scraping, or credit checks in context of legal basis, (7) user handles a right to object (Art. 21), (8) user asks about children's data, profiling, or cross-border data sharing under legitimate interest, (9) user compares legitimate interest against other legal bases. Do NOT use for: consent assessments (Art. 6(1)(a)), contract performance (Art. 6(1)(b)), DPIA workflows, or pure ePrivacy/cookie compliance questions — though the skill does address the ePrivacy/GDPR overlap where relevant.

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 a security incident, data breach, or actively exploited vulnerability raises the question "who must we notify, where, and by when?" Screens one incident across the EU reporting regimes — NIS2, GDPR, DORA, and the Cyber Resilience Act — determines which duties fire for each involved entity's roles, resolves the receiving authority per regime and member state from served national law, and produces a deadline table in which every duty, authority, and deadline is cited from official publisher text fetched live through the Ansvar Gateway MCP connector. Never answers 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。

Export Administration Regulations (EAR, 15 CFR Parts 730-774) compliance advisor — ECCN classification across all 10 CCL categories and 5 product groups (A-E), EAR99 determination, jurisdiction analysis (EAR vs ITAR order of review), license requirement analysis via Country Chart, all license exceptions (LVS, GBS, CIV, TMP, RPL, GOV, TSU, ENC, TSR, APP, BAG, AVS, ACE), end-user/end-use controls (Entity List, Denied Persons List, Unverified List, MEU List), deemed export rules, Foreign Direct Product Rule (FDPR), de minimis thresholds, 10 General Prohibitions, SNAP-R license applications, voluntary self-disclosure, civil/criminal penalties, Export Compliance Program (ECP) design, and EAR vs ITAR jurisdiction determination. Use for any dual-use export control, CCL classification, or BIS compliance question.

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 structured compliance review, clause redlining, and drafting suggestions for legal documents (privacy policies, data processing agreements, vendor and SaaS contracts) against India's DPDPA 2023 and the EU GDPR. Flags clauses as compliant, at-risk, or non-compliant with reasoning, and proposes ready-to-use model replacement language.

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。

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.

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 GDPR compliance assistant covering all four core workflows: (1) auditing code and systems for GDPR violations, (2) drafting GDPR-compliant documents such as privacy policies, Data Processing Agreements (DPAs), and consent notices, (3) answering GDPR compliance questions with authoritative article citations, and (4) reviewing data flows and PII handling practices. Use this skill whenever the user mentions GDPR, data protection, privacy compliance, lawful basis, data subject rights, DPA, privacy notices, consent management, data breaches, DPIAs, controller/ processor relationships, cross-border data transfers, or any EU/UK data privacy topic. Also trigger for questions like "is this GDPR compliant?", "how do I handle personal data?", "what does a privacy policy need?", or any request involving PII, personal data, or data retention in a regulatory context.

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。

Generates a formal, structured AI Act compliance assessment report suitable for legal files, audit trails, and regulatory inquiries. This skill should be used when the user asks to "generate an AI Act report", "create a compliance assessment report", "document the AI Act analysis", "create a Prüfbericht", "export as Word document", or wants to consolidate prior AI Act skill outputs into a formal documented 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 a user asks what the EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) means for their product, whether and when they must report a vulnerability or incident, or what a specific CVE triggers legally. Maps a product with digital elements to CRA scope, product classification, Annex I vulnerability-handling duties, and Article 14 reporting obligations — every legal claim cited from official regulation text fetched live through the Ansvar Gateway MCP connector, joined with live CVE / CISA-KEV / EPSS vulnerability intelligence from the same connector.

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。

Rédaction d'assignations en référé devant le tribunal de commerce ou des activités économiques pour le droit de communication d'un associé. Utiliser ce skill quand l'utilisateur demande de rédiger, préparer ou créer une assignation en référé fondée sur l'article L. 238-1 du code de commerce pour obtenir la communication forcée de documents sociaux (comptes annuels, rapports de gestion, PV d'assemblées, etc.) lorsqu'un dirigeant refuse ou fait obstruction à la communication de ces documents à un associé.

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。