812 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Verify a BibTeX file for hallucinated or fabricated references by cross-checking every entry against CrossRef, arXiv, and DBLP. Reports each reference as verified, suspect, or not found, with field-level mismatch details (title, authors, year, DOI). Use when the user wants to check a .bib file for fake citations, validate references in a paper, or audit bibliography entries for accuracy.
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。
Benchmark LLM reference recommendation capabilities by verifying every cited paper against Crossref, PubMed, arXiv, and DBLP. Measures hallucination rate, per-field accuracy (title/author/year/DOI), discipline breakdown, and year constraint compliance. Supports tool-augmented (ReAct + web search) mode. Use when the user asks to evaluate, benchmark, or compare models on academic reference hallucination, literature recommendation quality, or citation accuracy.
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。
Benchmark LLM reference recommendation capabilities by verifying every cited paper against Crossref, PubMed, arXiv, and DBLP. Measures hallucination rate, per-field accuracy (title/author/year/DOI), discipline breakdown, and year constraint compliance. Supports tool-augmented (ReAct + web search) mode. Use when the user asks to evaluate, benchmark, or compare models on academic reference hallucination, literature recommendation quality, or citation accuracy.
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。
When the user wants to optimize content for AI search engines, get cited by LLMs, or appear in AI-generated answers. Also use when the user mentions 'AI SEO,' 'AEO,' 'GEO,' 'LLMO,' 'answer engine optimization,' 'generative engine optimization,' 'LLM optimization,' 'AI Overviews,' 'optimize for ChatGPT,' 'optimize for Perplexity,' 'AI citations,' 'AI visibility,' 'zero-click search,' 'how do I show up in AI answers,' 'LLM mentions,' 'optimize for Claude/Gemini,' 'llms.txt,' 'OKF,' 'Open Knowledge Format,' 'knowledge bundle,' or 'agent-readable site.' Use this whenever someone wants their content to be cited or surfaced by AI assistants and AI search engines. For traditional technical and on-page SEO audits, see seo-audit. For structured data implementation, see schema.
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 UNMIK Regulation 64 Panels of the Kosovo district courts (2000–2008). Citations are verified against UNMIK/EULEX archives and legal-tools.org. Keeps the Reg. 64 Panels distinct from the Kosovo Specialist Chambers, and clarifies that Reg. 2000/64 permitted (did not impose) internationally-majority panels. 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。
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。
No Inference / Source-Locked Verification. Forces Claude to answer ONLY from user-provided materials and/or online sources actually accessed — no inference, no assumptions, no gap-filling. Every factual, legal, numerical, or procedural claim must be anchored to a cited source. Use whenever Claude reviews documents, summarises evidence, checks accuracy, drafts submissions, creates timelines, extracts facts, checks citations, analyses rules, prepares legal arguments, compares documents, verifies claims, produces chronologies, works from uploaded materials, performs legal research, checks case status, or does anything where evidential fidelity matters. Also trigger on: 'source-locked', 'no inference', 'only from the materials', 'don't assume', 'stick to the evidence', 'verify this', 'check this is right', 'work from the documents'. Overrides Claude's default tendency to fill gaps. If evidential accuracy matters, 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。
>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。
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。
Verification-first methodology for the Special Court for Sierra Leone and its Residual Special Court. Citations are verified against rscsl.org and legal-tools.org. Covers Taylor, the AFRC/CDF/RUF cases, the child-soldier and forced-marriage holdings, the head-of-State immunity decision, and the fixed-term (no life) penalty regime. 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。
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。
Verification-first methodology for the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. Citations are verified against the STL legacy archive and legal-tools.org. Covers the Ayyash et al. case, the two contempt cases (STL-14-05 New TV/Al-Khayat and STL-14-06 Akhbar Beirut/Al-Amin), and the 2011 terrorism decision. 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。
Edit mathematically, empirically, or technically dense papers for readers outside the author’s specialty, including empirical legal scholarship, law-and-economics models, and legal-technology research. Clarifies terminology, antecedents, study design, and claim–statistic relationships while checking equations, numbers, quotations, and citations against the source. Use to clarify exposition or de-jargonize a technical draft; not to rewrite briefs or doctrinal arguments. Produces an edited draft and audit memo. Full integrity checks and original-format rendering require suitable extraction, code execution, and document tools; otherwise provides proposed edits with verification limits disclosed.
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 académique dans les bases de données de doctrine juridique française, européenne et internationale. Utiliser cette skill lorsque l'utilisateur demande de rechercher des articles de doctrine, des thèses, des ouvrages académiques, ou des travaux universitaires en droit — y compris en droit comparé. Sources principales : ISIDORE (agrégateur SHS du CNRS incluant Cairn.info, Persée, OpenEdition), HAL (archive ouverte française), OpenAlex (base ouverte mondiale 250M+ travaux), Semantic Scholar, CrossRef, Persée (OAI direct), et CORE. Couvre la doctrine juridique francophone ET internationale avec workflow bilingue intégré pour le droit comparé. Déclencher aussi pour : bibliographie commentée, état de l'art, revue de littérature juridique, recherche d'auteur, vérification de citation, analyse bibliométrique.
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。
La compétence Normalisation juridique FR nettoie un document Word rédigé en français juridique. Elle distingue deux régimes : les corrections déterministes (apostrophes courbes, guillemets français, espaces insécables, insécables des références — art. 1240, n° 21-12.345, 50 % —, ordinaux 1ère → 1re, ligatures œ, la loi dispose et non stipule, anglicismes-calques), appliquées directement ; et les réécritures de jugement (virgule avant « et », ternaires creux, formules emphatiques, harmonisations), posées en révisions Word soumises à votre acceptation. Chaque changement est consigné et restitué en tableau récapitulatif : on revient en arrière mot à mot — « défais 3, 7-10 ». La normalisation des citations reste purement formelle. Fonctionne en Cowork ou sur fichier Word.
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。
A zero-hallucination privacy-policy generator that takes anyone — non-lawyer founder to lawyer — from a guided intake to a publishable, jurisdiction-aware privacy policy. Jurisdiction-first: it detects which laws apply from where your users are, then drafts only the required clauses — GDPR/EU + UK, US (CCPA/CPRA, ~20 state laws, COPPA, sector overlays), and global/MENA (LGPD, Quebec Law 25, India DPDP, China PIPL, UAE/DIFC, Saudi PDPL), plus app-store, cookies, and AI/EU AI Act disclosures. Its rule: state only what you confirm; never invent a statute, citation, fine, or date — every claim is source-cited and QA-gated. 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。
Research, drafting, and analysis involving the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute system). Enforces a verification-first methodology — every case-law, decision, filing, warrant, and statement citation is verified against an authoritative primary source (icc-cpi.int, legal-tools.org) in the current conversation before it appears in an output. Foundational texts (Rome Statute, Elements of Crimes, RPE, Regulations of the Court) may be cited from project knowledge when present. Use whenever the user is working with ICC case law, OTP statements, ASP documents, or ICC procedure.
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 ICTY, the ICTR and the Residual Mechanism (IRMCT). Citations are verified against irmct.org, the Case Law and Unified Court Records databases, and legal-tools.org. Handles the IT/ICTR to MICT case-number transition (Karadžić, Mladić) and the protective-measures rule. 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。
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。
Verification-first methodology for the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor's Office (The Hague, applying Kosovo law). Citations are verified against scp-ks.org before use; appeal registry numbers are cited only once confirmed. Covers Thaçi et al., Mustafa, Pjetër Shala and Gucati & Haradinaj. 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。
Audits a legal document against legal design principles. Scores the document on six pillars: language patterns (bureaucratese, archaisms, passive voice, nominalization), readability (Flesch Reading Ease and language-specific equivalents), structure and navigation, hidden conditions (material obligations buried away from their headings), statutory duplication (restating the law instead of citing it), and visual hierarchy where layout is available. Assessment-only; does not rewrite the document. Works on English, French, and German documents, inferring the applicable jurisdiction from the document's language and textual signals: governing-law clause, statute citations, party addresses. Use when a user shares a legal document (contract, NDA, T&C, privacy policy, internal policy) asking how good the drafting is from a legal design perspective, whether it is readable, whether it contains buried clauses or restates the law, or how it scores on Flesch / LIX / Amstad / Kandel-Moles readability metrics.
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。
Index analytiques sourcés du corpus réglementaire et doctrinal sur la gouvernance des émetteurs cotés français (rapports AMF et HCGE 2020-2025, guide d'application HCGE, rapport sénatorial Rietmann/Gay, Code AFEP-MEDEF, sources légales et européennes). À utiliser pour : (1) retrouver une position, une statistique ou une citation exacte avec sa source et sa page ; (2) analyser l'évolution longitudinale des positions AMF/HCGE/ESMA sur un thème ; (3) appliquer la grille d'analyse en 13 blocs (A-M) à un émetteur. Déclencher pour toute question sur la gouvernance d'une société cotée française : conseil d'administration, indépendance des administrateurs, comités, rémunération des dirigeants, say on pay, say on climate, assemblée générale, droits des actionnaires, plans de succession, mixité, RSE/CSRD, comply-or-explain, name and shame AMF, soft law AFEP-MEDEF, recommandations AMF, positions HCGE.
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 AI Act Knowledge Engine — authoritative regulatory Q&A grounded in 70 official EU source documents (including the 2026 Commission draft guidelines on Art. 6 high-risk classification — general principles, Annex I, Annex III). Answers any question about the AI Act with article-level citations from the full regulation text, Commission guidelines, EDPB/EDPS opinions, codes of practice, harmonised standards, FRIA guides, incident templates, and sector-specific guidance. This skill should be used when the user asks about the "EU AI Act", "AI Act regulation", "Regulation 2024/1689", "KI-Verordnung", asks to "explain an AI Act article", "what does Article X say", "AI Act requirements", "AI Act penalties", "AI Act timeline", "GPAI obligations", "high-risk AI", "prohibited AI practices", "AI Act and GDPR", "fundamental rights impact assessment", "AI Act standards", "AI Act national implementation", "AI literacy", "serious incident reporting", "Digital Omnibus", "AI regulatory sandbox", or any question about EU artificial intelligence regulation. Also triggers on German terms: "KI-Gesetz", "KI-Verordnung", "Hochrisiko-KI", "KI-Kompetenz", "Grundrechte-Folgenabschaetzung", "GPAI-Verhaltenskodex". For assessment workflows that produce a classification decision rather than a knowledge answer, offer to run a structured risk-tier classification in-session.
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。