「pin」の検索結果

Surface beliefs, assumptions, stories, and values shaping a system. Use when deeper mental models need examining with care and evidence.

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。

Map a complex topic by placing factors on hexagonal tiles where adjacency signals a claimed relationship. Use when students need to surface hidden connections in a system before analysis or action.

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 a library of metacognitive prompts targeting planning, monitoring, or evaluation for a specific task. Use when developing students' thinking-about-thinking during independent work.

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。

Design a structured goal-setting protocol using SMART or implementation-intention frameworks for students. Use when launching units, projects, or developing student self-direction habits.

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。

Design a developmental band system mapping student growth from early childhood through upper secondary. Use when building competency-based curriculum architecture for a school or programme.

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。

Design a learning task where mixed-age students work together with mutual benefit for all age groups. Use when planning cross-age tutoring, vertical grouping, or multi-year group activities.

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。

Classify curriculum content into Know, Understand, and Do categories to align teaching and assessment approaches. Use when planning units, writing objectives, or selecting assessment methods.

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。

Design a sequence where students compare AI's handling of the same question across disciplines, developing a mental model of where AI is reliable vs. distorting based on knowledge type.

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 the user has a RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) system and wants to evaluate its quality — separating retrieval issues from generation issues. Also use when the user mentions RAG evaluation, faithfulness checking, hallucination detection in RAG, retrieval quality, chunking optimization, or "is my RAG pipeline working." Outputs a diagnostic matrix that pinpoints whether problems are in retrieval or generation.

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。

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。

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。

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。

Systematic contract negotiation strategies for technology services agreements with German/EU law specificity. Provides three-position framework (provider-favorable, balanced, client-favorable), deal-size calibration (€100K to €10M+), five-tier objection handling with regulatory leverage (GDPR, DORA, NIS2, BGB), concession packaging, and position matrices for liability, IP, payment, SLA, data protection, and termination. Use when: (1) Developing negotiation strategies for SaaS, cloud, or managed services agreements, (2) Preparing position papers and fallback positions, (3) Responding to counterparty objections, (4) Structuring concession packages that protect core economics, (5) Calibrating tactics to deal size and leverage, or (6) Applying German contract law constraints (BGB §§ 305-310 AGB, § 309 Nr. 7 liability limits, § 288 statutory interest).

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。

Brief statutes and legislative Acts using the MAPS + RULES framework. Use when briefing statutes, analyzing legislative text, mapping statutory structure, extracting rule-modules from provisions, applying statutes to scenarios, or any statutory analysis task. Triggers include "brief this statute," "analyze this Act," "map the statute," "apply [statute] to [scenario]," "what are the elements of [provision]," "statutory analysis," or references to codified sections (such as 42 U.S.C. sections or Texas Health & Safety Code). Supports two modes - (A) text-only briefing for structural analysis, and (B) scenario-driven briefing that applies statutory provisions to specific facts.

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。

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。

First-pass framework for reading, interpreting, and structuring statutory analysis of US federal, state, and local law. Produces draft analysis for attorney review — not legal advice. Use this skill whenever the user references a specific US statute, regulation, ordinance, or rule by citation, asks "what does [statute X] require," asks for compliance scoping, applicability thresholds, requirement extraction, exemption analysis, definitional analysis, federal preemption analysis, or multi-state comparison — even if they don't explicitly ask for "statutory analysis." Halts and asks for missing inputs rather than guessing. Out of scope for non-US law.

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。

Verification-first methodology for the post-WWII tribunals: the IMT at Nuremberg, the twelve Nuremberg Military Tribunals, and the IMTFE at Tokyo. Citations are verified against the official records (Blue/Green Series, Pritchard-Zaide) and the digital archives (Avalon, Harvard NTP, UVA IMTFE). Guards the four classic traps (IMT vs NMT; Nuremberg vs Tokyo; Charter article numbers; majority judgment vs separate opinions, e.g. the Pal dissent). 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。

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。

Expert NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) advisor covering CSF 2.0 and CSF 1.1. Use this skill whenever a user asks about NIST CSF, cybersecurity risk management, the six CSF functions (Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, Recover), CSF profiles, implementation tiers, gap assessments, organizational profiles, community profiles, CSF core subcategories, informative references, or mapping to other frameworks (NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001, CIS Controls, COBIT). Also trigger for questions like "how do I implement NIST CSF?", "what does CSF 2.0 change?", "help me build a CSF profile", "how do I assess my cybersecurity posture?", or any request involving organizational cybersecurity risk strategy or framework alignment.

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 New Zealand Information Security Manual (NZISM) advisor for NZ government agencies and their supply chains. Use for NZISM control guidance, gap analysis, agency security obligations, classification framework (Unclassified through Top Secret), security risk management, system certification, and GCSB/NCSC NZ compliance. Triggers on: NZISM controls, NZ government security, GCSB compliance, agency cybersecurity obligations, NZ classification markings, Restricted/Confidential/Secret system scoping, agency security policies, third-party supplier security, Certification and Accreditation (C&A), and any question about NZ government information security requirements or the NZISM framework.

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。

NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 compliance advisor — all 20 control families (AC, AT, AU, CA, CM, CP, IA, IR, MA, MP, PE, PL, PM, PS, PT, RA, SA, SC, SI, SR), Low/Moderate/High baseline selection, FIPS 199/200 system categorization, control tailoring and overlays, privacy controls (PT family), supply chain risk management (SR family), assessment procedures (SP 800-53A), OSCAL, RMF integration (SP 800-37), and mapping to FedRAMP, FISMA, CMMC 2.0, and ISO 27001. Use for any federal system security controls, FISMA compliance, RMF step guidance, control narrative writing, or baseline tailoring 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。