「awe」の検索結果

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。

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。

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。

Recherche, cartographie et analyse des thèses de doctorat françaises via theses.fr (API ABES) et TEL (HAL). Spécialisée droit avec filtrage par sous-disciplines juridiques. Ouverte sur d'autres domaines universitaires. Capacités : (1) recherche multi-critères — sujet, directeur, jury, établissement, école doctorale, période, statut soutenue/en préparation, discipline ; (2) cartographie académique — qui dirige sur quel sujet, qui siège dans quels jurys, réseaux de co-direction, écoles doctorales productives ; (3) analyses temporelles — évolution d'un sujet, détection de saturation, calendrier des soutenances à venir ; (4) filtrage sous-discipline juridique — droit privé, public, social, affaires, international, etc. Déclencher dès que l'utilisateur mentionne thèse, doctorat, directeur de thèse, jury de thèse, école doctorale, soutenance, doctorant, ou demande une analyse d'écosystème doctoral. Pour articles ou ouvrages de doctrine, utiliser plutôt recherche-doctrine.

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。

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。

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。

Audit an AI agent skill before installing it. Use proactively whenever the user is about to add, install, enable, or evaluate an unfamiliar skill — including phrases like "audit this skill", "is this skill safe", "scan skill before install", "check skill for malicious code", "review this plugin", or any pre-install gate on an untrusted, third-party, or community-distributed skill bundle. Runs ten categories of static checks (code execution, network exfiltration, credential harvesting, persistence, prompt injection, supply-chain hooks, obfuscation, destructive filesystem ops, secrets, Trojan Source / homoglyphs) and emits a PASS / WARN / FAIL verdict.

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。

Produces an adversarial attack on a legal argument that survives reply. Runs the opposing-counsel discipline twice: an unrestrained first pass, then the same instrument turned on that pass to cut every point that collapses under challenge - attacks on conceded facts, wrong-forum objections, speculation about documents and motives, gotchas with innocent explanations, overclaims, self-refuting assertions, and padding. The deliverable is one standalone attack containing only what can be defended, capped at five heads, not a discussion of the discarded draft. Use to attack, stress-test, red-team or rebut a submission, brief, motion, witness statement, letter or structured legal reasoning. Triggers on "attack this but only with points that hold", "no cheap shots", "what survives reply", "which points can I actually defend", "give me the version I can file", "double-pass adversarial review". Also use when an earlier adversarial review came back overlong or scattershot. Formal British English.

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。

Builds compliance checklists for business scenarios involving GDPR, PIPL, or advertising/data laws. Outputs a structured checklist with check items, legal basis, risk levels, and actionable recommendations. Triggered by requests like "run a compliance check," "GDPR/PIPL compliance," "pre-launch review," "privacy impact assessment (PIA/DPIA)," or asking if a feature is compliant.

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。

Determines whether a specific AI-agent action, output, recommendation, or proposed commitment remains admissible for execution or institutional reliance under current authority, delegated scope, evidence, facts, policy, risk, escalation, and revocation conditions. Use this Skill before an enterprise or regulated AI agent executes, updates records, triggers workflows, communicates externally, or before an institution relies on an agentic output in a way that creates consequence.

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。

Sanctions and export control analysis tool for Claude Desktop. Real-time individual screening across 30+ official lists (UN, EU, OFAC, OFSI, French DGT...), sectoral analysis, dual-use goods (EU Reg. 2021/821), US/China extraterritorial regimes (EAR, ITAR, FDPR, ECL), USD/SWIFT risk and jurisdictional mapping across 30+ countries. All results sourced and verified in real time — no memory-based answers. Responds in French, English, German, Spanish, Russian and Chinese. Updated 19 May 2026 (EU 20th package, UK SEUC, Cuba EO). Indicative guidance only — 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。

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。

Swiss legal source and authority triage. Use when a user asks a Swiss legal, regulatory, compliance, contract, employment, corporate, litigation, IP, tax, privacy, public-law, fintech, register, or cantonal-law question; when Swiss law may apply; or when an AI legal answer needs source routing across federal, cantonal, communal, regulator, register, contractual, professional, soft-law, multilingual, or open-data layers.

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。

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。

>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 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。

Expert SWIFT Customer Security Programme (CSP) advisor covering the Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF v2026). Use this skill whenever a user asks about SWIFT CSP, CSCF controls, SWIFT security attestation, KYC-SA portal, SWIFT architecture types (A1/A2/A3/A4/B), mandatory vs advisory controls, independent assessment, SWIFT secure zone, secure flow zone, MFA for operators, SWIFT messaging security, payment fraud prevention on SWIFT, gap analysis for CSCF, or compliance with SWIFT's 32 controls (25 mandatory, 7 advisory in v2026) across the three objectives: Secure Your Environment, Know and Limit Access, Detect and Respond. Control 2.4 (Back-Office Data Flow Security) is now mandatory in v2026. v2026 attestation window is July 1– December 31, 2026. Trigger for any SWIFT CSP or CSCF 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。

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。

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。

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。