2,073 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Run fable-mode execution discipline on Claude Sonnet. When invoked by slash command or by name, spawns a Sonnet subagent that follows the staged loop — stage plan, parallel delegation, a failable verification check at each stage, and a skeptical self-review before delivery; a wording-only request runs the loop inline on the current model. Trigger when the user explicitly asks for thorough/systematic/"deep work" handling on Sonnet.
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。
Automatic final verification pass on completed deliverables. Runs at the end of every fable-mode run — those skills invoke it before delivery. Also triggers when the user says "double check this". Uses a panel of fresh checker agents when spawning is authorized (otherwise a cold self-check) to verify the finished output — not to redo the task. Any FAIL gets fixed and re-checked before delivery.
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。
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 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。
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 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。
Verifies UK case-law citations, pinpoint references and quotations against the official public register — The National Archives' Find Case Law — and statutory references against legislation.gov.uk, before a document that cites them is relied on, served or filed. Every check returns a graded verdict: VERIFIED, MISMATCH (the citation resolves to a different case — the classic AI miscitation), NOT ON REGISTER, OUTSIDE COVERAGE (the register cannot answer — absence proves nothing), or UNCHECKABLE (a law-report citation). The grading exists because there are two ways to get this wrong: citing a case that does not exist, and accusing a real case of not existing. Use when asked to check citations, verify a case exists, confirm a quotation is verbatim, check a pinpoint paragraph, audit a draft's authorities, screen a document for hallucinated cases, or check a statutory provision is in force. Not a substitute for reading the judgment: existence is not authority.
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。
Post-hoc verification and trust audit of AI-generated factual and interpretive claims. Classifies claims by type and salience, routes them to domain-appropriate sources, scores trustworthiness on a tiered scale with an Interpolated verdict for plausible-but-unsupported detail, and assesses rhetorical fairness on interpretive claims. Designed for clinical-negligence and healthcare-law practice in England and Wales, with general applicability beyond.
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。
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。
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。
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。
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。
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。
Verification-first methodology for the ECCC (Khmer Rouge Tribunal). Every citation is verified against eccc.gov.kh, the ECCC archive or legal-tools.org. Covers Case File numbering, the 001/002/002-01/002-02 structure, the genocide findings against the Cham and the Vietnamese, and the Internal Rules revision discipline. 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。
Méthodologie « verification-first » pour les Chambres Africaines Extraordinaires (procès Hissène Habré, Dakar). Toute citation est vérifiée (forumchambresafricaines.org, legal-tools.org). Couvre le jugement du 30 mai 2016, l'arrêt d'appel du 27 avril 2017 (réparations de 82,290 milliards FCFA pour 7 396 victimes), et la compétence universelle. Aide à la recherche, pas un conseil juridique. Fait partie de la bibliothèque open source « Skills for International Justice » — méthodologie : 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。
Méthodologie « verification-first » pour la Cour Pénale Spéciale de Centrafrique (cour hybride, siège à Bangui). Toute citation est vérifiée (JusticeInfo, FIDH, HRW, legal-tools.org ; les sites officiels renvoient souvent une erreur 403). Couvre l'affaire Paoua, le « notamment » de l'article 3, et la complémentarité avec la CPI. Aide à la recherche, pas un conseil juridique. Fait partie de la bibliothèque open source « Skills for International Justice » — méthodologie : 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 Section I (War Crimes) of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Citations are verified against the Court of BiH, the ICTY/IRMCT archives and OSCE. Distinguishes ICTY-referred (Rule 11 bis) cases from locally-initiated ones; covers Stanković, Janković and the Maktouf lex mitior ruling. 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。
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。
After any AI-generated explanation, require the learner to identify one place it could be wrong, one thing to check, and one source to consult. Builds epistemic vigilance — treats AI output as a claim to evaluate, not truth to absorb.
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。