「mission」の検索結果

Build or change a customer-system integration with explicit data mapping, permissions, retries and reconciliation. Use for connectors, imports, write-back and upstream APIs.

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。

Plan how to earn customer trust and appropriate access. Use when credibility, permissions or AI policy constrain the engagement.

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 NIS2 Directive (Directive (EU) 2022/2555) compliance advisor for essential and important entities: entity classification, Art. 21 risk management measures, Art. 23 incident reporting timelines (24h/72h/1 month), Art. 20 governance obligations, supply chain security (Art. 21(2)(d); coordinated risk assessments Art. 22), gap assessments, policy drafting, ISO 27001 alignment, and penalty exposure analysis. Also covers Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, the technical/methodological sub-requirements for Art. 21(2) and the significant-incident thresholds binding on DNS/cloud/data-centre/MSP/MSSP/trust-service and other digital entities. Use for NIS2 readiness, transposition questions, ENISA technical implementation guidance, significant-incident thresholds, supervisory differences between essential and important entities, and cross-border coordination.

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。

Security-first skill vetting for AI agents. Use before installing any skill from ClawdHub, GitHub, or other sources. Checks for red flags, permission scope, and suspicious patterns.

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。

FDA regulatory consultant for medical device companies, covering 510(k)/PMA/De Novo pathways, QSR (21 CFR 820), HIPAA, and device cybersecurity. Use for FDA submissions, predicate and substantial-equivalence analysis, and premarket strategy.

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。

Senior Regulatory Affairs Manager for HealthTech and MedTech. Use for regulatory strategy, FDA 510(k)/PMA/De Novo submissions, EU MDR CE marking, global market access, and regulatory intelligence.

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 asks to "optimize CLAUDE.md", "create a new skill", "write a custom agent", "configure hooks", "manage context window", "set up MCP servers", "scaffold a skill package", "analyze token budget", "create subagents", "configure permissions", "set up worktrees", or "integrate Claude Code with editors". Covers Claude Code CLI mastery, skill authoring, context engineering, hooks automation, subagent creation, and development workflow optimization.

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。

Implement Terraform Provider resources and data sources using the Plugin Framework: CRUD operations, schema design, plan modifiers and validators, not-found handling, waiters for eventually consistent APIs, import support, resource design principles, and required acceptance test coverage. Use when adding or changing a resource or data source, deciding whether an API concept should be a resource, wiring a resource to the provider's configured client, handling drift or resource-not-found, or reviewing a resource implementation before submission.

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。

RFP creation, distribution, evaluation, and shortlisting for in-house legal teams selecting outside counsel. Draft a new legal services RFP from scratch, evaluate firm responses against weighted criteria, produce a shortlist recommendation with selection rationale for GC sign-off, or design the end-to-end RFP process from scratch. Trigger on: 'draft an RFP', 'run an RFP process', 'evaluate firm responses', 'score the RFP submissions', 'which firms should we shortlist', 'selection recommendation', 'how do we run a panel RFP', 'RFP for legal services', 'pitch process', 'firm selection process', 'compare the proposals', 'we're reviewing our panel', 'panel refresh RFP', 'we need to go to market', 'request for proposal', 'evaluate the pitches', 'which firm won the RFP', 'write a legal RFP', 'RFP evaluation criteria', 'design the RFP process', 'how do we weight the criteria'.

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。

No Inference / Source-Locked Verification. Forces Claude to answer ONLY from user-provided materials and/or online sources actually accessed — no inference, no assumptions, no gap-filling. Every factual, legal, numerical, or procedural claim must be anchored to a cited source. Use whenever Claude reviews documents, summarises evidence, checks accuracy, drafts submissions, creates timelines, extracts facts, checks citations, analyses rules, prepares legal arguments, compares documents, verifies claims, produces chronologies, works from uploaded materials, performs legal research, checks case status, or does anything where evidential fidelity matters. Also trigger on: 'source-locked', 'no inference', 'only from the materials', 'don't assume', 'stick to the evidence', 'verify this', 'check this is right', 'work from the documents'. Overrides Claude's default tendency to fill gaps. If evidential accuracy matters, 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。

EU NIS2 Directive (Directive (EU) 2022/2555) compliance advisor for essential and important entities: entity classification, Art. 21 risk management measures, Art. 23 incident reporting timelines (24h/72h/1 month), Art. 20 governance obligations, supply chain security (Art. 21(2)(d); coordinated risk assessments Art. 22), gap assessments, policy drafting, ISO 27001 alignment, and penalty exposure analysis. Also covers Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, the technical/methodological sub-requirements for Art. 21(2) and the significant-incident thresholds binding on DNS/cloud/data-centre/MSP/MSSP/trust-service and other digital entities. Use for NIS2 readiness, transposition questions, ENISA technical implementation guidance, significant-incident thresholds, supervisory differences between essential and important entities, and cross-border coordination.

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。

Génération de sujets d'entraînement complets pour l'épreuve de NOTE DE SYNTHÈSE (5 heures, coefficient 3) de l'examen d'accès au CRFPA : choix du sujet, dossier documentaire de 16 à 20 documents assemblé à partir de sources réelles vérifiées (textes, jurisprudence, travaux parlementaires, doctrine) avec contrôle du verbatim, puis grille de notation au modèle de la Commission nationale (résumé de chaque document, problématique, thèmes cotés sur 20, plan). Livraison en deux fichiers .docx distincts, le sujet et la grille. Si l'utilisateur n'impose pas de sujet, en chercher un dans l'actualité juridique. Mode aveugle pour l'étudiant qui compose sans rien voir du corrigé. Déclencher dès que l'utilisateur demande un sujet de note de synthèse, un dossier documentaire, une note de synthèse blanche, un entraînement à l'épreuve de 5 heures du CRFPA ou de l'IEJ, ou une grille de note de synthèse. NE PAS déclencher pour les épreuves de 3 heures (sujet-crfpa-toutes-matieres) ni pour la correction de copies.

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 Digital Regulation Legal Analysis Forge — generates a tailored expert prompt for structured legal analysis of an EU digital-regulation document, optionally executes it in-session, and always produces a plain-English explainer alongside the formal output. Handles Regulations, Directives, Commission Guidelines, EDPB Opinions, CJEU and AG judgments, national DPA decisions, codes of conduct, and draft consultations across the EU digital stack.

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。

Takes a skill — a .skill or .zip archive, a bare SKILL.md, a folder, or just a raw idea — and produces a package ready for public distribution on lawve.ai, plus the exact entries for the submission form. Runs a gate first: skills with no plausible legal use, unsafe code, or licensing bars are declined with reasons, and general-purpose skills that could serve legal work are offered a legal adaptation instead. Then applies the standard compliance transforms — structure, metadata, attribution, dependency ladders, orphaned-file repair, limitations disclosure — validates the result, and delivers a zip. Raw ideas are gated first, built (via skill-creator where available), then adapted. Use for "make this Lawve-compliant," "prep this skill for Lawve," "package for lawve.ai," "is this suitable for Lawve," "get my skill ready to publish," or any request to ready a skill for the Lawve catalogue.

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。

Invoice review, non-compliance flagging, rejection communication, billing trend analysis, and conversation preparation for in-house legal ops teams managing outside counsel. Review invoices against billing guidelines; flag block billing, prohibited fees, rate violations, staffing violations, late submission. Produce line-item review report and approval note. Draft rejection letter to outside counsel. Build invoice review checklist. Analyse billing trends across multiple invoices and produce a structured conversation guide for the relationship review. Identify systemic patterns and produce formal non-compliance notice. Trigger on: 'review this invoice', 'flag billing issues', 'check invoice against guidelines', 'write the rejection letter', 'build an invoice checklist', 'block billing', 'UTBMS', 'billing non-compliance', 'analyse our invoices', 'billing trends', 'prep for the billing conversation', 'relationship review', 'the firm keeps doing this', 'escalate'.

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。

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。

Assesses which of the Art. 50(1)-(5) transparency obligations of the EU AI Act apply to a given AI system's provider or deployer, grounded in the final Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content (June 2026) and the Commission's draft Art. 50 Guidelines. Covers AI-chatbot disclosure, deepfake and synthetic-content marking/watermarking, emotion-recognition and biometric-categorisation notices, the machine-readable marking duty, the obviousness exceptions, and the implementation timeline. Outputs a formal mini-report plus a per-obligation compliance checklist with gap flags. For breadth-first tier triage use the EU AI Act System Classifier; for raw Art. 50 text and Q&A use the EU AI Act Knowledge Base; for the full role x tier matrix use the EU AI Act Obligations Mapper.

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。

Draft, adapt, and review contracts and clauses aligned with The Chancery Lane Project's methodology for reducing carbon emissions through legal agreements. Use when Claude needs to: (1) Draft new climate-aligned clauses (e.g., net zero commitments, carbon accounting, supply chain decarbonization), (2) Adapt or modify existing contracts to incorporate climate objectives, (3) Review and analyze clauses for alignment with climate goals and decarbonization strategies, (4) Provide guidance on The Chancery Lane Project's house style and drafting methodology for climate-conscious legal work.

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。

Analyse student work against criteria to identify specific gaps between current performance and learning objectives. Use when reviewing submissions, planning feedback, or diagnosing learning needs.

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。

Design a Funhouse Mirror activity where students use their own domain expertise to detect AI distortions, omissions, and overconfidence. Use when students know a subject well enough to evaluate AI claims about 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。