Focused research analysis on a specific topic with 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。
1,315 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Focused research analysis on a specific topic with 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。
Full content production pipeline from blank page to publish-ready piece: research, briefs, drafting, SEO, readability, and editorial gates. Use when writing blog posts, articles, guides, or long-form content end-to-end at scale.
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。
Score ad creative fatigue against baseline, predict days left, brief refreshes. "are our ads fatiguing"
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。
Orchestrate a campaign lifecycle: briefs, budget models, UTMs, post-mortems. "set up UTM naming conventions"
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 run influencer, creator, or ambassador partnerships to promote their product — finding and vetting partners, structuring deals, briefing creators, disclosure compliance, and measuring ROI. Also use when the user mentions 'influencer marketing,' 'creator partnerships,' 'sponsorships,' 'YouTube sponsorships,' 'podcast sponsorships,' 'brand ambassador,' 'ambassador program,' 'creator program,' 'UGC creators,' 'B2B influencers,' 'thought leader ads,' 'gifting,' 'product seeding,' 'whitelisting creator content,' 'how much to pay an influencer,' or 'FTC disclosure.' For affiliate/referral payout mechanics, see referrals. For community-led advocacy, see community-marketing. For turning creator content into paid ads, see ad-creative.
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 verification of AI-generated legal content with systematic fact-checking, source validation, and quality control. Use when a user asks to verify, fact-check, red-team, validate sources, or quality-control a legal document, briefing, compliance summary, or regulatory analysis before it is distributed to clients, stakeholders, or published. Trigger phrases include "verify", "fact-check", "red team", "red-flag", "check accuracy", "validate sources", "quality control", "is this correct", and "review for errors". Produces a structured verification report with severity-categorized errors, verified sources, unsupported claim list, missing disclaimers, and an explicit distribution-readiness assessment.
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。
Produces an adversarial attack on a legal argument that survives reply. Runs the opposing-counsel discipline twice: an unrestrained first pass, then the same instrument turned on that pass to cut every point that collapses under challenge - attacks on conceded facts, wrong-forum objections, speculation about documents and motives, gotchas with innocent explanations, overclaims, self-refuting assertions, and padding. The deliverable is one standalone attack containing only what can be defended, capped at five heads, not a discussion of the discarded draft. Use to attack, stress-test, red-team or rebut a submission, brief, motion, witness statement, letter or structured legal reasoning. Triggers on "attack this but only with points that hold", "no cheap shots", "what survives reply", "which points can I actually defend", "give me the version I can file", "double-pass adversarial review". Also use when an earlier adversarial review came back overlong or scattershot. Formal British English.
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。
Generates standalone interactive HTML "deal cards" that translate complex regulations into negotiation-ready reference tools, systematically distinguishing mandatory obligations from negotiable implementation choices. Use when the user needs an interactive regulatory guide for (1) contract negotiation support, (2) client education or internal training, (3) regulatory briefings for commercial stakeholders, or (4) structured comparison between required and flexible compliance paths. Primary focus on EU digital regulation (Data Act, AI Act, CRA, DORA, NIS2, GDPR) but the structural pattern transfers to any regulation where separating hard obligations from implementation choice is the point. Supports bilingual output where the jurisdiction calls for 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。
Find and quote statutory and regulatory law with the LibreJustice MCP tools — French codes at any date, EU law, treaties and bilateral accords, foreign codes (59 countries), collective agreements, BOFiP, circulaires. Use whenever the user asks what a text says or said at a given date, which version or which text applies to a situation, needs the exact wording of a provision for a brief, or works with foreign or international law in French litigation, 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。
Matter scoping across the full pre-execution arc — organise client data into a structured brief, capture the agreed baseline, or reconstruct scope mid-flight. Use when making sense of client information before a proposal, scoping a new matter, running a kickoff, defining scope, mapping stakeholders, or inheriting a matter mid-flight. Trigger on: 'make sense of this', 'structure this for the proposal', 'scope this matter', 'new matter', 'kickoff', 'what are we doing', 'who are the stakeholders', 'what does success look like', 'matter setup', 'intake', 'I've inherited this matter', 'organise this client data'.
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。
Use this skill whenever a lawyer or mediator needs help analyzing a dispute for mediation purposes. This includes: reviewing case materials (pleadings, contracts, correspondence, evidence) to identify issues in dispute, summarizing each party's position and interests, conducting legal analysis of the key issues, proposing mediation strategies or settlement directions, and preparing for mediation sessions. Trigger this skill when the user mentions 'mediation', 'dispute analysis', 'settlement', 'dispute resolution', 'identify issues in dispute', 'party positions', 'mediation brief', 'case analysis for mediation', 'ADR', 'mediation preparation', 'caucus strategy', 'settlement options', or any request to analyze a conflict between two or more parties with the goal of finding resolution. Also trigger when the user uploads case files and asks for a structured breakdown of who wants what, what the core disagreements are, or how the case might settle. Even if the user doesn't explicitly say 'mediation', trigger when the context involves analyzing opposing positions in a dispute with a resolution-oriented (rather than litigation-oriented) goal.
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。
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。
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。
Restructure any rough build, research, or legal-drafting request into an IRAC-shaped prompt — Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion — optimized for a frontier model. It's the bar-exam framework, repurposed as prompt engineering. The skill leads with the issue and ends with the conclusion (where models weight attention most), forces you to name your constraints and non-goals, and specifies what "good" looks like before a single token is generated. Use it before any non-trivial build, or whenever a vague ask deserves a precise brief.
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。
Turn an interpretive-ambiguity audit of a legal text — contract, statute, regulation, or judicial opinion — into a polished deliverable. Produces a multi-page website (default), a single-page interactive site, a Microsoft Word document, a PowerPoint deck, or a LaTeX/PDF. Use whenever a user has a stress-test result, ambiguity audit, or "where will this be litigated" scenarios and wants to publish, present, or share them. Triggers on "publish the audit," "make a report from this," "turn this into a website / deck / brief / Word doc," "make a Netlify site," "build slides of these ambiguities," "render the scenarios," "package this stress test," "produce a LaTeX version," and similar. Pairs with the ambiguity-stress-test skill (the underlying analysis) but works on any structured or semi-structured ambiguity analysis. Visual design is opinionated but the user can override colors, fonts, and brand label. Most formats need Python and a writable filesystem; single-file HTML works where the host has neither.
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。
Capture, structure, and recycle lessons from active and closed legal matters. Three modes: in-flight capture (triggered by scope changes, risk events, status updates — highest value), mid-matter review (phase gates or quarterly), and matter close retrospective (full structured findings). Lessons are formatted for immediate reuse, not filed and forgotten. Use when a risk materialises, a scope change lands, a phase completes, or a matter closes and you want to convert what happened into something useful for the next matter. Trigger on: 'capture a lesson', 'what did we learn', 'matter close', 'retrospective', 'lessons learned', 'what went wrong', 'what worked', 'phase gate review', 'debrief', 'extract the learning', 'close the matter', 'what should we do differently', 'pattern from this matter', 'improve the next one'.
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。
U.S. customs and trade-law research assistant for HTS classification, CROSS ruling research, CIT/CAFC decision briefing, duty compilation (General + Special + Chapter 99 + AD/CVD + MPF/HMF), country of origin determination, FTA qualification, and end-to-end import compliance review. Triggers on product classification, tariff questions, customs rulings, trade remedy screening (Section 301/232/201), Partner Government Agency admissibility, and UFLPA forced-labor analysis. Produces attorney-reviewable draft work product with an enforced HTSUS authority hierarchy and explicit evidence ledger.
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 you want to pressure-test a potential new business, product, or side project against the serial-founder filter. Not "marketing ideas for a product" (that's marketing-skills:marketing-ideas) — this is "should this business exist + can you win it." Runs the idea through a structured framework (problem, audience, wedge, monetization, moat, portfolio fit, distribution, energy fit, opportunity cost), checks domain availability via /domain, optionally triggers /deep-research for market validation, and outputs a viability brief: build / sleep on it / pass. Archives every idea to ~/.config/makerskills/business-brainstorm/archive/ so past work is searchable. Triggers on "/business-brainstorm," "/brainstorm," "new business idea," "should I build X," "pressure test this idea," "validate this idea," "is X a good business," "what about a [type] for [audience]."
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 you want to draft, update, convert, or export a slide deck for a React/Next.js slide system (${SLIDE_DECK_REPO:-$HOME/code/your-slide-deck-site}/src/app/slides/). Writes TypeScript Slide[] arrays using your primitives (Eyebrow, Heading, Accent, Body, BulletList, Divider, TwoCol, GradientText), 12 cycling brand gradients, optional sections for "where am I" context, and speaker notes. Inspired by zarazhangrui/frontend-slides — "show, don't tell" for narrative (presents 3 angles, you pick) plus density modes (speaker-led vs reading-first). Four modes — new (draft from brief), update (modify existing, with overflow guards), ppt (convert legacy PPTX → React deck), export (Playwright snapshot existing React deck to standalone HTML, PDF, or Vercel URL — keeps brand). Triggers on "/slide-deck," "/slides new," "/slides export," "/slides update," "/slides ppt," "draft a deck," "deck for [topic]," "talk on [topic]," "keynote on [topic]," "internal deck for [audience]," "convert this pptx," "export this deck."
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 you want to set up an agent loop, cron-scheduled task, or recurring workflow that runs autonomously. Judgment layer on top of Claude Code's ScheduleWakeup, CronCreate, and /loop — or, on other hosts, cron/GitHub Actions plus a headless agent CLI. Picks dynamic pacing, fixed cron, or a one-shot loop; designs idempotent loop bodies; sets bail-out conditions so loops don't run forever. Examples — weekly review pulse, daily brief, hourly metric monitor, periodic vault compile, upstream-check for an adapted skill. Triggers on "/loopify," "set up a loop," "schedule this task," "run this daily," "run this weekly," "cron this," "make this recurring," "automate this on a schedule," "keep this running until X." Part of the -ify trifecta (skillify / toolify / loopify). NOT for authoring a new skill — that's skillify. NOT for adding a tool/integration — that's toolify.
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 you want multi-source, multi-step research on a topic — competitor research before a sales call, market research for a new business idea, positioning angles, due diligence on a partnership or podcast guest, tech decision research (which DB, which auth), or any "I need to actually understand X." Combines web search, URL fetch, agent-browser, last30days (Reddit/X/YouTube/HN/web recency), memory, and Notion. Outputs a structured brief with citations, contradictions, gaps, and recommended next steps. Archives every research run to ~/.config/makerskills/deep-research/archive/ so past work is searchable. Triggers on "/deep-research," "research X," "investigate X," "do a deep dive on X," "look into X," "what's actually happening with X," "due diligence on X," "validate this market." Differs from a one-shot web search: this is multi-pass with verification.
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。