「ssm」の検索結果

Expert PCI DSS compliance advisor covering PCI DSS v4.0.1 (current) and v4.0. Use this skill whenever a user asks about PCI DSS, payment card security, cardholder data protection, CDE scoping, SAQ types (A, A-EP, B, B-IP, C, C-VT, P2PE, D), ROC, AOC, QSA assessments, ASV scans, merchant levels, service provider levels, network segmentation, penetration testing, tokenisation, encryption of PAN data, or any of the 12 PCI DSS requirements. Also trigger for questions like "are we PCI compliant?", "how do I scope my CDE?", "which SAQ applies to us?", "what changed in PCI DSS v4.0?", "how do I prepare for a QSA audit?", or any request involving payment data security, cardholder data environment, or PCI certification readiness.

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。

Panel health assessment, firm exit management, coverage gap analysis, and panel refresh brief for in-house legal ops teams. Produce an annual Panel Health Report synthesising scorecard data, billing compliance, and step-out patterns into per-firm recommendations — Retain, Watch, Improvement Plan, or Exit Review. Produce a firm exit pack: formal exit notice with active matter transition plan, plus an internal exit record. Identify practice area, geographic, or tier gaps and produce a structured Coverage Gap Report with remediation options. Produce a Panel Refresh Brief as a scoped input to the RFP process. Trigger on: 'review our panel', 'annual panel review', 'is our panel working', 'which firms should we exit', 'write the exit notice', 'coverage gap', 'we don't have anyone for restructuring', 'refresh the panel', 'panel rationalisation', 'too many firms', 'step-out problem', 'do we have the right firms'.

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。

Expert NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) advisor covering all four functions: GOVERN, MAP, MEASURE, MANAGE. Use this skill whenever a user asks about NIST AI RMF, AI risk management, AI trustworthiness, GOVERN function, MAP function, MEASURE function, MANAGE function, AI RMF Playbook, AI risk profiles, responsible AI, AI bias management, AI transparency, AI explainability, AI reliability, AI safety, NIST AI 100-1, AI risk assessment, AI incident response, or alignment to EU AI Act, ISO 42001, or NIST CSF via AI RMF. Trigger even if the user doesn't say "skill" — any NIST AI RMF or AI governance risk question 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。

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。

Expert LGPD compliance advisor for Brazil's Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados (Law 13,709/2018). Use this skill whenever a user asks about LGPD, Brazilian data protection, ANPD, personal data processing in Brazil, data subject rights under Brazilian law, legal bases for processing, sensitive data handling, DPO appointment in Brazil, data breach notification to ANPD, LGPD penalties (fines up to 2% of revenue / R$50M), international data transfers from Brazil, Brazil-EU mutual adequacy (January 2026 — SCCs/BCRs no longer needed for Brazil-EU transfers), LGPD gap assessments, privacy policy drafting for Brazilian operations, DPIA under LGPD, consent management, or comparing LGPD with GDPR. Trigger for any Brazil privacy or data protection question even if LGPD is not named explicitly.

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 whether Government of India approval is required for foreign investment in an Indian company under Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and the Non-Debt Instruments Rules, 2019. The skill systematically gathers transaction details, evaluates sectoral entry routes and caps, assesses land border country restrictions under applicable laws, and delivers a preliminary compliance note. Produces clear guidance on whether the investment falls within Automatic Route or requires Government approval.

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。

End-to-end external local counsel lifecycle management for multi-jurisdiction legal matters. LC selection criteria and capability assessment, engagement setup and instruction design, performance monitoring and check-in cadence, scope enforcement, and relationship escalation. Use when selecting local counsel for a jurisdiction, designing LC instructions, managing the LC check-in rhythm, enforcing scope boundaries when LC signals overreach, or escalating a performance or relationship issue beyond the matter team. Trigger on: 'which LC should we use', 'LC instruction', 'brief the local counsel', 'LC hasn't responded', 'LC is going off scope', 'LC scope dispute', 'confirm scope with LC', 'LC check-in', 'LC is slow', 'monitor the LC network', 'LC engagement letter', 'LC selection', 'what should we tell the local counsel', 'LC onboarding', 'LC performance issue', 'LC relationship problem'.

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。

Assesses a legal argument, submission, or piece of structured reasoning from the perspective of a judge reading it cold under time pressure. Produces a structured seven-part assessment: what the case appears to be about, immediate points of confusion, what feels strong, what feels weak, what is assumed but unproved, a provisional confidence level (low/medium/high), and what would be needed to persuade. The skill does not rewrite, improve, or attack the argument — it tells you how it actually lands on a sceptical, experienced reader with no prior context. Works on skeleton arguments, witness statements, letters before action, position statements, academic articles, and non-legal structured reasoning.

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 this skill when asked to review data protection or privacy compliance under Icelandic law and GDPR. Triggers on requests involving personal data processing, privacy policies, DPIA assessments, kennitala handling, Persónuvernd filings, or cross-border data transfers from Iceland.

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 HIPAA compliance assistant for healthcare and software contexts. Use this skill whenever the user mentions HIPAA, PHI (Protected Health Information), ePHI, covered entities, business associates, healthcare data privacy, medical records, health information security, BAA (Business Associate Agreements), or any compliance review involving patient data. Also trigger for requests to draft privacy notices, HIPAA policies, consent forms, security risk assessments, or breach notification letters. Use for developers building healthcare software who need technical safeguard guidance (encryption, access controls, audit logs), compliance officers reviewing documents or procedures, and anyone asking "is this HIPAA compliant?" or "what does HIPAA require for X?". When in doubt about whether a healthcare or data privacy question falls under this skill — use it.

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。

AFA design, scope-to-fee matching, negotiation preparation, health check, and scope dispute assessment for in-house legal ops teams managing outside counsel arrangements. Design fee structures (fixed, capped, collar, blended, phased, success). Assess whether scope supports a proposed AFA. Prepare commercial positions for fee negotiations. Review existing AFAs against delivery data. Assess OOS claims and build dispute response. Trigger on: 'structure the fee', 'move off hourly', 'design an AFA', 'does scope support a fixed fee?', 'negotiate the fee', 'renegotiate the arrangement', 'is our AFA holding?', 'fee health check', 'cap is being approached', 'firm is claiming OOS', 'is this in scope?', 'is this OOS?', 'AI should reduce the cost', 'blended rate vs fixed', 'collar arrangement', 'phased fees'.

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。

Maps the full set of legal obligations for the EU AI Act based on role + risk tier, producing an actionable compliance matrix with RACI assignments and implementation priorities. This skill should be used when the user asks to "map AI Act obligations", "check what we need to do under the AI Act", "create a compliance checklist", "check deployer obligations", "assess provider duties", or mentions Art. 26, Art. 16-17, AI literacy Art. 4, DPIA, fundamental rights assessment, or "Pflichtenkatalog" under the AI Act.

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 compliance with the EU General-Purpose AI (GPAI) Code of Practice under the AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689). Use when asked to determine GPAI model provider obligations, assess Code of Practice compliance, evaluate transparency or copyright requirements for GPAI models, check systemic risk obligations, build a GPAI compliance roadmap, or prepare for AI Office requests. Covers all three Code chapters (Transparency, Copyright, Safety & Security), the 12 commitments and their measures, systemic risk classification (Article 51), provider obligations (Articles 53 and 55), open-source exemptions, enforcement timeline, Commission/AI Office supervision, and DACH-specific overlays such as BSI cybersecurity and works council implications. Triggers on phrases like "GPAI compliance", "Code of Practice assessment", "GPAI model obligations", "systemic risk evaluation", "AI Act transparency requirements", "GPAI copyright policy", "general-purpose AI compliance".

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 obligations under Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 for connected products, related services, statutory B2B data sharing, unfair data-contract terms, exceptional-need B2G requests, data-processing-service switching, international governmental access, interoperability, smart contracts, enforcement, and non-EU representatives. Use for Data Act scope analysis, gap assessments, product and service design, request handling, contract review, cloud exit planning, or cross-regulation mapping.

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。

Elite incident response and legal compliance guidance for data breaches under GDPR Articles 33 & 34. Use when: (1) User reports a data breach or security incident — including "is this even a personal data breach?" triage, (2) User asks about breach notification obligations or deadlines, (3) User mentions "72 hours", Art. 33, Art. 34, or notification requirements, (4) Discussion involves security incidents affecting personal data, (5) User needs breach risk assessment using ENISA methodology, (6) User mentions "Data Breach" or "Incident" or "Data Leakage" or "Ransomware" or "Exfiltration", (7) User needs to determine Controller vs Processor obligations, (8) Cross-border breach scenarios requiring Lead SA determination, (9) User needs a mitigation playbook or immediate response recommendations, (10) User needs audit-ready breach documentation (.docx) or an EDPB-template-aligned breach notification / evidence file — including follow-up and withdrawal notifications, (11) Breach involves an AI system requiring AI Act Art. 73 serious incident screening.

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 (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) compliance advisor — risk classification across all four tiers, all 9 prohibited practices (Art. 5, including the nudification/CSAM prohibition from Dec 2, 2026), all 8 Annex III high-risk use case areas, provider and deployer obligations (Arts. 9–17, 26), GPAI model obligations including the July 2025 Code of Practice (Arts. 51–55), conformity assessment and CE marking (Arts. 43–48), EU AI database registration, Art. 50 transparency (chatbots, synthetic media, AI-generated content), governance (AI Office, AI Board), penalties (Art. 99), confirmed phase-in timeline (Digital Omnibus adopted June 29, 2026: Annex III deferred to Dec 2, 2027; Annex I to Aug 2, 2028), and cross-framework mapping to ISO 42001, NIST AI RMF, and GDPR. Use for any EU AI regulation, AI system classification, or AI compliance question. Current as of July 2026. GPAI enforcement powers activate August 2, 2026.

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 EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) advisor for Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 — mandatory cybersecurity and vulnerability handling requirements for all products with digital elements (PDEs) sold in the EU. Use this skill for gap analysis, product classification (Default / Class I / Class II), conformity assessment route selection, CE marking, SBOM requirements, vulnerability and incident reporting to ENISA/CSIRTs, support period obligations, and manufacturer/importer/distributor duties. Trigger for EU CRA, Cyber Resilience Act, PDE compliance, Annex I requirements, SBOM EU, CE marking cybersecurity, or connected product security EU.

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。

Depth assessment of whether an AI system is high-risk under Art. 6 of the EU AI Act, grounded in the Commission's draft Art. 6(5) classification guidelines (general principles + Annex I + Annex III). Covers the Annex I product-safety route, all eight Annex III areas with worked examples, the Art. 6(3) exception and its profiling re-exception, and the Art. 25 quasi-provider trap. Outputs a structured decision block, a practitioner memo, and a JSON interchange artefact.

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。

Transforms reading-oriented prose into listening-optimized text for flat, neutral vocal delivery — TTS, podcasts, audiobooks, CLE audio. Carries a legal layer: case citations, section symbols, subsection lettering, Latin terms and footnotes are unspeakable as written, so a brief, opinion, statute, contract or memo needs them expanded, restructured or stripped before it can be listened to — and quoted authority is never rewritten. Use when converting written content for audio, preparing oral argument by ear, producing CLE or client-facing audio, or making a document listenable on a commute. Triggers on "make this listenable," "convert for audio," "optimize for reading aloud," "prepare for TTS," "make an audio version," "podcast script," "read this aloud." Supports English, French, Spanish, Italian, German and Portuguese; outputs plain text, ElevenLabs audio tags, or SSML for Amazon Polly, Google or Azure.

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 AI systems under the EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) and determine compliance obligations. Use when asked to assess AI risk level, check if an AI system is prohibited, determine high-risk status, identify GPAI model obligations, map provider/deployer responsibilities, or build an AI Act compliance roadmap. Covers the full classification decision tree (Prohibited → High-Risk → Limited → Minimal → GPAI), obligations by role (provider, deployer, importer, distributor), compliance timelines, and DACH-specific considerations (German works council, BaFin, BSI, BNetzA). Triggers on phrases like "classify this AI system", "is this high-risk under the AI Act", "AI Act risk assessment", "EU AI Act compliance", "prohibited AI practice", "GPAI obligations", "AI Act timeline".

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。