「asks」の検索結果

Discovers and ranks tasks from GitHub, GitLab, local files, and custom sources

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 should be used when the user asks to "analyze this codebase", "document this service", "generate technical docs", "I inherited this code", "help me understand this system", "create docs for this project", "what does this system look like", "onboard me to this codebase", "this codebase has no docs", "visualize the architecture from code", or any explicit request to produce structured documentation or architecture diagrams from an existing codebase. Specifically optimized for AWS workloads (CDK, CloudFormation, Terraform) with source-of-truth citations. Do NOT activate for code reviews, single-function explanations, generating new code, or general coding tasks.

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 wants help with academic papers or citations but it's unclear which specific workflow fits — reviewing a paper, checking a BibTeX file for fake references, or benchmarking multiple LLMs on reference-recommendation accuracy. Also use when the user mentions paper review, peer review, BibTeX verification, citation checking, reference hallucination, or academic literature accuracy and hasn't specified which of those three tasks they mean. This skill is the entry router for the academic-eval suite: it asks one diagnostic question then routes to the right sub-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。

Enforces staged execution discipline on large tasks: a written stage plan, parallel delegation where the runtime supports it, a failable verification check at each stage, and a skeptical self-review before delivery. Trigger when the user explicitly asks OR when the task objectively spans multiple files, sources, or sessions. Do NOT trigger on ordinary multi-step requests that a direct attempt handles fine (autonomous triggering only; explicit invocation always runs).

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 fable-mode execution discipline on Claude Haiku. Routes the task to the @fable-worker-haiku agent, whose definition carries the staged loop with tightened verification (no bare "unverified" allowed) and an escalate-don't-improvise rule. Trigger when the user explicitly asks for thorough/systematic handling run cheaply or fast ("fable on haiku", "deep work mode but cheap", "stage this on haiku"). For bulk mechanical work. Do NOT use for tasks needing synthesis — benchmark note: at n=1 the skill's effect on Haiku swung both directions (+25 / −17); route quality-critical work to fable-sonnet instead.

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 fable-mode execution discipline on Claude Fable 5.1 — the top of the escalation ladder and the strongest staged run available. Routes the task to the @fable-orchestrator agent with its model overridden to Fable (`model: "fable"`), which stages the work, delegates artifact production to @fable-worker-sonnet / @fable-worker-haiku, and cold-checks deliverables with @fable-verifier. Trigger when the user explicitly asks for thorough/systematic/"deep work" handling on the strongest model ("fable on fable", "stage this on fable", "deep work mode, fable", "run this on 5.1"), or when a fable-opus run reports the task exceeds Opus's ceiling. Benchmarked 2026-09-02: zero correctness delta on Fable 5.1 at ~1.1× tokens, ~2× wall — a provenance runner, not an accuracy runner. Do NOT use for ordinary single-pass tasks — prefer fable-opus, fable-sonnet, or fable-haiku when the task doesn't need peak reasoning. Fable is plan-included; bulk work still routes down-tier.

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。

Pick the right LLM for CONTRACT DRAFTING — generating, redlining, or rewriting contract language from instructions. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 legal benchmarks (legalbenchmarks.ai Contract Drafting). Asks up to 4 quick questions (cost, speed, accuracy/ stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/language), then recommends a primary model + fallback + what to avoid + what a human must verify. Use when someone asks "which model should I use to draft this clause/agreement", "best AI for drafting contracts", "route this drafting task", or is about to generate/redline contract text and hasn't fixed a model.

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。

Pick the right LLM for CONTRACT REVIEW — reviewing an existing agreement for risk, deviations from standard, missing protections, and internal contradictions, and proposing redlines. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 legal benchmarks. Contract review is a COMPOSITE skill (extraction + reasoning + redlining + conflict-detection), so this routes by the dominant sub-task. Asks up to 4 quick questions (cost, speed, accuracy/stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/ language), then recommends a primary model + fallback + what to avoid + what a human must verify. Use when someone asks "which model to review this contract / NDA / MSA", "best AI to redline", "route this contract review", or is about to review an agreement without a fixed model.

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。

Pick the right LLM for LEGAL TRANSLATION — translating contracts, statutes, case law, and legal correspondence across languages, including Arabic/MENA. Vendor-neutral routing triangulated from mid-2026 evidence (WMT25 human eval, SwiLTra-Bench legal-MT, multilingual-reasoning proxies, ArabLegalEval). There is NO clean legal-translation leaderboard, so this vertical is directional and treats human legal-linguist review as mandatory. Asks up to 4 quick questions (language pair, cost, speed, privacy/certification), then recommends a primary model + fallback + what to avoid + what a human must verify. Use when someone asks "which model to translate this contract/statute", "best AI for legal translation", "translate this legal doc to/from Arabic", or is about to machine-translate legal text without a fixed model.

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。

Pick the right LLM for LEGAL INFO EXTRACTION — pulling facts, clauses, dates, parties, obligations, and structured fields out of contracts and legal documents. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 benchmarks (legalbenchmarks.ai Info Extraction; CUAD/MAUD/ACORD). Asks up to 4 quick questions (cost, speed, accuracy/stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/language), then recommends a primary model + fallback + what to avoid + what a human must verify. Use when someone asks "which model should I use to extract clauses/data from these documents", "best AI for contract data extraction", "route this extraction task", or is about to pull structured fields from legal docs without a fixed model.

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。

Pick the right LLM for LEGAL RESEARCH & ANALYSIS — issue-spotting, rule application, case/statute analysis, memos, and multi-step agentic research. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 benchmarks (Vals AI LegalBench across 124 models; Harvey Legal Agent Benchmark for agentic work). Asks up to 4 quick questions (cost, speed, accuracy/stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/language), then recommends a primary model + fallback + what to avoid + what a human must verify. Use when someone asks "which model for legal research / case analysis / a memo", "best AI for legal reasoning", "route this research task", or is starting legal analysis without a fixed model.

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。

Build dependency network and critical path from a matter plan. Produce an interactive Gantt, flag near-critical tasks, and run what-if cascade scenarios when delays occur — showing programme impact and drafting communications. Produces filtered workstream or jurisdiction views for local counsel. Trigger on: 'build a timeline', 'Gantt chart', 'critical path', 'what if X is delayed', 'what moves if', 'schedule impact', 'how does this affect the programme', 'when do we finish', 'can we still close on time', 'if we miss this deadline', 'run a what-if', 'visualise the plan', 'Germany timeline', 'what does the Employment workstream look like', 'timeline for local counsel', 'just show me the [workstream] tasks'.

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。

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。

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。

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。

Builds a high-fidelity interactive legal assessment as a single self-contained HTML artifact. Output includes a live countdown timer, contract review tasks with hover-annotated problem clauses, candidate answer textareas, model answers hidden behind reveal blocks, scenario-based legal memo tasks, strategy and function-building questions, and a pre-submission checklist that encodes the marking criteria. Use when the user needs to (1) assess a legal candidate with a realistic timed exercise, (2) train or onboard junior lawyers using problem sets rather than doctrine, (3) help a candidate prepare for a real take-home assessment they are facing, (4) build educational materials for law students, in-house teams, or compliance training, or (5) produce scenario-based training modules on specific legal topics. Triggers on "legal test", "take-home", "mock exam", "contract redline exercise", "candidate assessment", "legal training exercise", "practice test", or similar phrasing even when informal.

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。

Research a US employment law topic across federal, state, and city jurisdictions and produce structured research notes with proper source attribution. Use this skill any time the user asks about US employment laws, regulations, or pending legislation - from a single jurisdiction question to a 50-state survey. Triggers include phrases like "research [employment law topic]", "what are the laws on [employment topic]", "state-by-state [employment topic]", "help me understand [topic] across the US", or any prompt that asks for a legal landscape overview before another deliverable. Always run this BEFORE the employment-law-dashboard skill if a dashboard is the eventual output. Output is a structured research note that distinguishes primary sources (statutes, regs, agency guidance) from secondary sources (law firm alerts, tracker orgs).

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。

Translate legal documents from any language into English while preserving .docx formatting and translating track changes and headers/footers. Use this skill whenever the user asks to translate a legal document, contract, deed, agreement, or any formal legal text into English. Also trigger when the user mentions translating .docx files that contain legal content, or asks for a "format-preserving translation" of a legal document. This skill covers all legal domains: finance, M&A, corporate, IP, real estate, regulatory, consumer, taxes, litigation, SaaS and more. Even if the user just says "translate this contract" or "translate this into English", use this skill if the document is legal in nature.

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。

Analyze any OFAC or OFSI enforcement action — by URL, pasted text, or uploaded document — and produce a structured root cause analysis as a formatted Excel (.xlsx) spreadsheet. Use this skill whenever a user names, links to, pastes, or uploads an OFAC or OFSI enforcement action and asks for any of the following: root cause analysis, compliance gaps, what went wrong, lessons learned, organizational self-assessment, or remediation planning. Also trigger when a user asks "analyze this enforcement action", "what were the root causes", "turn this into a checklist", or "how do I make sure this doesn't happen to us". Outputs a single-sheet .xlsx table with six columns: Root Cause | What Went Wrong | How It Went Wrong | What Could Have Stopped It | Is my organization immune to this? (Yes/No/Partial) | Notes.

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。

Practitioner skill for advising on EU Regulation 2023/2854 (Data Act). Covers Chapters II-VII (IoT data access, mandatory B2B sharing, unfair contract terms, public-sector exceptional need, cloud switching, third-country governmental access) and Chapter VIII (interoperability and smart contracts, gate-only). Use when the user asks about Data Act rights or obligations, drafts a Data Act notice or letter, reviews a data-sharing or cloud-switching contract under the Data Act, runs a Data Act gap analysis, or asks how the Data Act interacts with GDPR, the DMA, the Trade Secrets Directive, or sectoral law. Triggers include "Data Act", "Datengesetz", "Regulation (EU) 2023/2854", "Art. 4(1) request", "Art. 5(1) third-party request", "trade-secret handbrake", "cloud switching obligations", "Chapter VI", "Ch V exceptional need", and references to specific Data Act articles or recitals.

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。