5,045 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Commercial policy: the governance framework defining what terms sales can offer and what triggers approval. Use when authoring a policy charter, defining discount/payment/liability rules, auditing deals, or generating a regional policy.
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 a quick what-if on 2-4 budget scenarios with revenue and ROI estimates. "compare two budget splits"
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 an offer too good to refuse. Lists every problem the buyer hits on the way to the result they want, turns each into a solution, trims to what is cheap to deliver and valuable to the buyer, and stacks it with honest bonuses, a guarantee the CFO can afford, real urgency and a clear name. Scores it on the value equation (outcome, likelihood, time, effort) and re-tests it on a quick buyer panel. Use when the user says "make my offer better", "why won't people buy", "what should I include", "guarantee", "bonuses", "grand slam offer", or after the panel shows people passing.
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。
Finds the price buyers will actually pay. Reads the consumer panel's four price answers per buyer into a Van Westendorp price-sensitivity range (too cheap, a bargain, getting expensive, too expensive), sets it against what competitors really charge and against the CFO's margin, and recommends a price, a price ladder (good / better / best) and an opening offer to test. Use when the user says "how much should I charge", "price this", "is $X too expensive", "pricing strategy", "what price", or after the consumer panel.
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。
Your CFO. Builds the unit economics of a business before money is spent: what one unit earns after its direct costs, the real profit margin at the planned volume, the break-even point in units a day, year 1 month by month, the cash needed before it pays for itself, how long the startup spend takes to earn back, and what happens if the price drops, sales come in low or costs rise. Every number traces to an input the user can check. Use when the user says "find the profit margins", "do the numbers", "is this profitable", "break-even", "unit economics", "how much do I need to start", or "run the CFO".
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。
Define the scope and purpose of a complex inquiry before mapping or futures work begins. Use when a class or group needs to agree what they are investigating, who it matters to, and at what 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。
When the user needs marketing ideas, inspiration, or strategies for their SaaS or software product. Also use when the user asks for 'marketing ideas,' 'growth ideas,' 'how to market,' 'marketing strategies,' 'marketing tactics,' 'ways to promote,' 'ideas to grow,' 'what else can I try,' 'I don't know how to market this,' 'brainstorm marketing,' or 'what marketing should I do.' Use this as a starting point whenever someone is stuck or looking for inspiration on how to grow. For specific channel execution, see the relevant skill (ads, social, emails, etc.).
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 plan, map, or restructure their website's page hierarchy, navigation, URL structure, or internal linking. Also use when the user mentions "sitemap," "site map," "visual sitemap," "site structure," "page hierarchy," "information architecture," "IA," "navigation design," "URL structure," "breadcrumbs," "internal linking strategy," "website planning," "what pages do I need," "how should I organize my site," or "site navigation." Use this whenever someone is planning what pages a website should have and how they connect. NOT for XML sitemaps (that's technical SEO — see seo-audit). For SEO audits, see seo-audit. For structured data, 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。
When the user wants to conduct, analyze, or synthesize customer research. Use when the user mentions "customer research," "ICP research," "talk to customers," "analyze transcripts," "customer interviews," "survey analysis," "support ticket analysis," "voice of customer," "VOC," "build personas," "customer personas," "jobs to be done," "JTBD," "what do customers say," "what are customers struggling with," "Reddit mining," "G2 reviews," "review mining," "digital watering holes," "community research," "forum research," "competitor reviews," "customer sentiment," or "find out why customers churn/convert/buy." Use for both analyzing existing research assets AND gathering new research from online sources. For writing copy informed by research, see copywriting. For acting on research to improve pages, see cro.
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 multiple expert perspectives on a marketing question — a simulated board of advisors staffed by legendary marketers (Seth Godin, David Ogilvy, Eugene Schwartz, April Dunford, Rory Sutherland, Alex Hormozi, Byron Sharp, and more). Also use when the user mentions 'marketing council,' 'board of advisors,' 'advisory board,' 'what would Seth Godin say,' 'what would Ogilvy think,' 'channel Hormozi,' 'get multiple perspectives,' 'debate this,' 'have the council review,' 'marketing mentors,' or asks how a famous marketer would approach their problem. The council gives each advisor's take through their documented frameworks, surfaces where they disagree, and synthesizes a recommendation. For executing the winning direction, hand off to positioning, offers, copywriting, ads, or the relevant 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。
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 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。
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 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 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。
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。
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。
Expert TSA cybersecurity compliance advisor for critical infrastructure owners and operators. Use this skill whenever a user asks about TSA Security Directives for pipelines, freight railroads, passenger rail, public transit, or bus operators; the TSA Cyber Risk Management Program (CRMP); Cybersecurity Implementation Plan (CIP); Cybersecurity Operational Implementation Plan (COIP); Cybersecurity Assessment Plan (CAP); incident reporting to CISA; designation of a Cybersecurity Coordinator; Critical Cyber Systems (CCS); OT/IT network segmentation; the TSA November 2024 NPRM; or any directive in the SD Pipeline-2021 series, SD 1580-21-01 (freight rail), or SD 1582-21-01 (public transit/passenger rail). Also trigger for questions like "are we covered by TSA directives?", "what does the TSA require for pipeline cybersecurity?", "how do I build a CIP?", "what must I report to CISA?", or any request involving transportation critical infrastructure cybersecurity 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。
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。
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。
Expert ISO 42001 AI Management System (AIMS) compliance advisor. Use this skill whenever a user asks about ISO/IEC 42001:2023, AI governance, AI management systems, AI risk assessment, AI system impact assessment, Annex A controls for AI, Statement of Applicability for AI systems, AI policy, responsible AI, AI lifecycle management, AI incident management, AI transparency, AI bias, AI certification readiness, or any topic related to implementing or auditing an AI Management System. Also trigger for questions like "how do I become ISO 42001 certified?", "what controls does ISO 42001 require?", "how do I assess AI risk under 42001?", "what is an AIMS?", or any request involving organisational governance of AI systems, responsible AI frameworks, or AI regulatory compliance aligned to an ISO standard.
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。
Routes any legal task to the right LLM, like OpenRouter but for legal work and grounded in benchmarks instead of brand loyalty. Built from mid-2026 legal evals (legalbenchmarks.ai, Vals AI × Stanford LegalBench across 124 models, Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark, the Atticus Project's CUAD/MAUD/ACORD) plus translation evidence (WMT25, SwiLTra-Bench, ArabLegalEval). Covers five verticals: contract drafting, info extraction, legal research, contract review, and legal translation (including Arabic/MENA). Each asks up to four questions (cost, speed, accuracy/stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/language), then returns a primary model, a fallback, what to avoid, and what a human must verify. Core principle: capability is not controllability, so every route ends with a verification step. Not legal advice; a lawyer owns the output.
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。
Searches the domestic courts of 122 jurisdictions — 153 databases, 49 automated — for extradition and arrest-warrant surrender decisions, each in its own language and vocabulary. Answers the question no commercial database does: how are OTHER executing states treating this requesting state, or this ground? Searching by requesting state localises its name per jurisdiction (AE becomes 'Emiratele Arabe Unite' in Romania, 'Emirati Arabi Uniti' in Italy), so the sweep finds what those courts actually wrote. Every hit passes a relevance gate; every search leaves a dated report, so the research is reconstructable months later. Use when asked what foreign courts have said about surrender to a given state, whether any European court has refused extradition on prison conditions, assurances or Article 3, for comparative extradition research, or to build a foreign-authority section of an extradition argument. Not for domestic case law of the user's own jurisdiction, and never a substitute for reading the judgment.
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。
An end-to-end method for drafting and finalising a complex, multi-pillar regulated fintech agreement — from intake to signature. Authored from a senior fintech lawyer's manual: a licensed payment-services provider engaging a counterparty across agent cash-in/cash-out, QR payments, wallet e-payments, and a marketplace, each with its own regulatory profile. Runs five phases and fourteen steps: regulatory mapping (activity-to-licence matrix, grey-zone classification gates), architecture (framework-plus-sub-agreement structure, ring-fenced marketplace), the regulatory–commercial balance (what flexes vs what cannot), core drafting (authority, float mechanics, hard-coded regulator caps, liability — all tracking control), execution-blocker triage, and a pre-signature check closing open blockers as conditions precedent. It refuses to invent licence-specific values or draft a representation as true without executed evidence. Use it to structure, draft, negotiate, or review any regulated payments contract.
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。