6,369 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
The learner teaches the concept to the AI, which plays a curious novice peer and identifies gaps through authentic questions. Use when the learner wants to test their understanding — teaching forces a different kind of organisation than studying.
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。
Before any explanation or answer, require the learner to produce a free-recall attempt and confidence rating. Use when a student wants help understanding or reviewing a topic — this skill ensures the AI works from what the learner already knows.
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。
Capture confidence ratings before and after a learning attempt to identify overconfidence and underconfidence patterns. Use when a student wants to understand how well they actually know something versus how well they think they know 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。
Generate follow-up teaching moves that extend student thinking after a specific classroom response. Use when a student says something worth exploring and the teacher wants to deepen the dialogue.
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。
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。
Screens a dismissal — proposed or already done — against the unfair dismissal framework for England & Wales, and shows where it is exposed. Structures the qualifying-service question, the automatically-unfair categories (no qualifying period), and a Burchell / Polkey / band-of-reasonable-responses analysis for a solicitor to verify — it does not determine fairness. Surfaces specific procedural risks. Use when the user says 'is this unfair', 'screen this dismissal', 'ordinary unfair dismissal', 'automatic unfair dismissal', or wants a structured fairness review before or after dismissal.
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。
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。
Scope management for legal matters — baseline capture, in-flight change control, OOS documentation, and scope retrospective. Use when asked to review scoping assumptions, assess whether work is in or out of scope, draft a scope change notice, track scope changes, prepare an OOS justification, run an OOS report, prepare a scope call agenda, or review what changed on a matter. Trigger on: 'scope change', 'out of scope', 'OOS', 'scope creep', 'is this in scope', 'the client wants us to also', 'additional work', 'scope review', 'what changed from the original scope', 'we need to revisit the quote', 'the budget assumed', 'OOS report', 'scope call with the client', 'run a scope report'.
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。
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。
Pre-flight privilege and work-product check for legal AI prompts. Use when the user is about to send legal content to a third-party AI surface (ChatGPT, Claude.ai, Copilot, Gemini, etc.) and wants to know whether the prompt risks blowing attorney-client privilege or work-product protection. Returns a SAFE/CAUTION/STOP band with cited factors, a discovery-impact line, and a redacted-safe rewrite.
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。
Apply elite legal writing techniques drawn from Justice Kagan, Boies & Olson, and other top advocates to any legal document — briefs, submissions, letters, opinions, memos, or persuasive correspondence. This skill covers both prose craft (clarity, examples, parallel construction, voice, quoting) and architectural strategy (argument sequencing, framing, openings, endings). Use this skill whenever the user asks you to draft, edit, or improve legal writing and wants it to be genuinely persuasive — not just correct. Also trigger when the user mentions 'make it more persuasive', 'sharpen this', 'strengthen the argument', 'rewrite this section', 'punch it up', 'legal writing', 'draft a brief', 'draft a submission', 'write like a top advocate', or asks you to improve the rhetoric, flow, or force of any legal document. This skill complements the larissa-legal-voice skill (which handles tone and personal voice) by adding the persuasive technique layer on top.
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。
NIS2 Compliance Navigator — scope classification, Art. 21 gap analysis (0-4 maturity scoring), and compliance roadmap under EU Directive 2022/2555 with deep German BSIG-neu coverage and profiles for Italy, France, Netherlands, Austria, Spain. Use when: (1) User mentions "NIS2", "NIS-2", "BSIG", "BSIG-neu", "NIS2UmsuCG", "Cyberbeveiligingswet", "Loi Résilience", "NISG", "decreto legislativo 138", (2) User asks if their organization falls under NIS2 or needs a cybersecurity compliance assessment, (3) User mentions essential/important entities, Annex I/II, BSI registration, § 30 BSIG, incident reporting, management body liability, supply chain security, (4) User wants a NIS2 gap analysis, readiness assessment, or compliance roadmap, (5) User asks about NIS2 fines, enforcement, or Nachweispflicht, (6) User asks about NIS2 in any EU Member State.
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。
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。
Use this skill whenever a lawyer or mediator needs help analyzing a dispute for mediation purposes. This includes: reviewing case materials (pleadings, contracts, correspondence, evidence) to identify issues in dispute, summarizing each party's position and interests, conducting legal analysis of the key issues, proposing mediation strategies or settlement directions, and preparing for mediation sessions. Trigger this skill when the user mentions 'mediation', 'dispute analysis', 'settlement', 'dispute resolution', 'identify issues in dispute', 'party positions', 'mediation brief', 'case analysis for mediation', 'ADR', 'mediation preparation', 'caucus strategy', 'settlement options', or any request to analyze a conflict between two or more parties with the goal of finding resolution. Also trigger when the user uploads case files and asks for a structured breakdown of who wants what, what the core disagreements are, or how the case might settle. Even if the user doesn't explicitly say 'mediation', trigger when the context involves analyzing opposing positions in a dispute with a resolution-oriented (rather than litigation-oriented) goal.
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。
Prepare a lawyer for an adversarial proceeding the way Neal Katyal's "Harvey" prepared him for the SCOTUS tariffs argument: profile the tribunal from their prior opinions and questions, predict the specific questions you will face, map narrow "escape routes" each judge can walk through without abandoning prior commitments, and spar adversarially until only the strongest answers survive. The model is the sparring partner. The human still wins the case. Use when: preparing for oral argument, appellate argument, motion hearing, evidentiary hearing, deposition (taking or defending), arbitration, mediation, or any proceeding where a known decision-maker will fire questions at you in real time. Also useful for stress-testing a brief before filing. Proactively suggest when: the user mentions an upcoming hearing/argument with named judges or arbitrators, drafts a brief and wants it pressure-tested, asks "what will Justice X / Judge Y ask me," or talks about preparing for a specific bench.
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。
Arbitrator research tool for investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS). The tool can summarize arbitrators' experience, with deliverables grounded in primary documents; it can also help find arbitrators based on the issues faced in a particular case. Use when the user asks about an arbitrator ("tell me about arbitrator X", "X, Y and Z"), wants help choosing or shortlisting arbitrators for a case, or asks about appointments, dissents, issue track records (e.g. FET, expropriation), challenge risk, double-hatting, or tribunal composition. Profiles are grounded in the UNCTAD ISDS Navigator dataset plus targeted live lookups (ICSID); deep verification retrieves the actual decisions. Sibling of isds-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。
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。
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。
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。
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。