「eth」の検索結果

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。

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。

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。

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。

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。

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。

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。

Run an attorney-facing knockout/availability trademark search across the United States and Canada. Use whenever a user (founder, client, or attorney) asks whether a brand, mark, name, logo, slogan, or product name is "available," "free to use," "clearable," or "already taken" — or asks Claude to "search the trademark register," "check USPTO," "check CIPO," "do a knockout search," "clearance search," "availability search," or "see if [mark] is trademarked." Trigger even when the user phrases it casually ("can I call my company X?", "is this name taken?"). Covers federal USPTO (TESS/TSDR), federal Canada (CIPO), common-law/web/state, and WIPO Madrid international. Output is a knockout availability memo with green/yellow/red verdict for attorney review. Includes professional-responsibility gating (AI-use disclosure, conflict check, scope confirmation) before substantive analysis. Not legal advice — produces work product for attorney sign-off.

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 Transfer Impact Assessment for Chapter V transfers under the EDPB Recommendations 01/2020 six-step methodology, the CNIL TIA Guide (January 2025), and EDPB essential guarantees. Handles transfer qualification, Art. 45 adequacy fast-tracks, Art. 46 full assessments with country profiles for 12 jurisdictions, and balanced Art. 49 derogation analysis. Outputs a Markdown report, a .docx formal TIA, and a JSON delta for RoPA interchange.

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。

Optimizes Claude for proofreading French texts, whether literary, technical, or professional. Grammar and spelling checks, detection of barbarisms, and stylistic suggestions.

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。

EU NIS2 Directive (Directive (EU) 2022/2555) compliance advisor for essential and important entities: entity classification, Art. 21 risk management measures, Art. 23 incident reporting timelines (24h/72h/1 month), Art. 20 governance obligations, supply chain security (Art. 21(2)(d); coordinated risk assessments Art. 22), gap assessments, policy drafting, ISO 27001 alignment, and penalty exposure analysis. Also covers Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, the technical/methodological sub-requirements for Art. 21(2) and the significant-incident thresholds binding on DNS/cloud/data-centre/MSP/MSSP/trust-service and other digital entities. Use for NIS2 readiness, transposition questions, ENISA technical implementation guidance, significant-incident thresholds, supervisory differences between essential and important entities, and cross-border coordination.

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。

Screen incoming NDAs and classify them as GREEN (standard), YELLOW (needs review), or RED (significant issues). Use when a new NDA comes in from sales or business development, when assessing NDA risk level, or when deciding whether an NDA needs full counsel review.

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 premortem for England & Wales civil litigation - builds the strongest version of a case, then attacks it from four angles to find where it loses before opposing counsel does. Runs an adversarial premortem on a UK litigation matter. Builds the strongest version of the case, then attacks it from four angles — procedural, substantive, evidentiary, strategic — to find where it actually loses. Returns a ranked stress-test brief: failure scenarios, evidence inconsistencies, blind spots, mitigations, and one brutal one-sentence verdict. Use before issue, before settlement negotiations, before a litigation-funder pitch, or before deciding whether to take a case.

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 high-quality MCP (Model Context Protocol) servers that enable LLMs to interact with external services through well-designed tools. Use when building MCP servers to integrate external APIs or services, whether in Python (FastMCP) or Node/TypeScript (MCP SDK).

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。

a skill that determines whether a given subject matter qualifies for copyright protection under EU law by applying the Cofemel two-step test (concept of work + originality), grounded in fifteen CJEU judgments (including the most recent Mio/Konektra and Calinescu) and the four EU directive provisions on originality. It argues from one of two positions: pro-rightsholder (establishing that the work is original) or pro-alleged-infringer (contesting work status or originality via the four exclusion grounds — technical function, rule-dictated outcome, sweat of the brow, idea/functionality). It includes sector-specific modules for photography, software/GUI, sporting events, databases, applied art, functional texts, derivative works/critical editions, and multimedia works.

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。

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。

Assess and classify legal risks using a severity-by-likelihood framework with escalation criteria. Use when evaluating contract risk, assessing deal exposure, classifying issues by severity, or determining whether a matter needs senior counsel or outside legal review.

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 and classify legal risks using a severity-by-likelihood framework with escalation criteria. Use when evaluating contract risk, assessing deal exposure, classifying issues by severity, or determining whether a matter needs senior counsel or outside legal review.

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 the transition from legal AI output to reliance, recommendation, execution, or real-world commitment. Use it before an AI-generated analysis, memo, contract review, compliance finding, or workflow output is acted upon to check whether authority, evidence, mandate, uncertainty, procedure, and review conditions remain sufficient.

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 and classify legal risks using a severity-by-likelihood framework with escalation criteria. Use when evaluating contract risk, assessing deal exposure, classifying issues by severity, or determining whether a matter needs senior counsel or outside legal review.

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。