2,196 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
ISO 13485 Quality Management System implementation and maintenance for medical device organizations. Provides QMS design, documentation control, internal auditing, CAPA management, and certification support.
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。
ISO 13485 internal audit expertise for medical device QMS. Use for audit planning and execution, nonconformity classification, CAPA verification, external audit preparation, or audit program management.
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。
Operations management across process optimization, efficiency, and continuous improvement. Use when designing workflows, building capacity plans, evaluating vendors, running Lean Six Sigma DMAIC projects, or optimizing cost-per-unit.
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。
Operations leadership advisor on business operations, process optimization, and scaling infrastructure. Use when designing operational processes, planning headcount capacity, optimizing vendors, or scaling operations.
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。
Translate marketing content using the brand glossary and do-not-translate terms, with quality scoring. "translate this into Japanese"
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。
Configure a brand region: timezone, currency, compliance regimes, holidays. "set up the Japan market"
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。
Comprehensive Scrum Master assistant for sprint planning, backlog grooming, retrospectives, capacity planning, and daily standups with intelligent context-aware reporting
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。
Benchmark LLM reference recommendation capabilities by verifying every cited paper against Crossref, PubMed, arXiv, and DBLP. Measures hallucination rate, per-field accuracy (title/author/year/DOI), discipline breakdown, and year constraint compliance. Supports tool-augmented (ReAct + web search) mode. Use when the user asks to evaluate, benchmark, or compare models on academic reference hallucination, literature recommendation quality, or citation accuracy.
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。
Discover and recommend **combinations** of agent skills to complete complex, multi-faceted tasks. Provides two recommendation strategies — **Maximum Quality** (best skill per subtask) and **Minimum Dependencies** (fewest installs). Use this skill whenever the user wants to find skills, asks "how do I do X", "find a skill for X", or describes a task that likely requires multiple capabilities working together. Also use when the user mentions composing workflows, building pipelines, or needs help across several domains at once — even if they only say "find me a skill". This skill supersedes simple single-skill search by decomposing the task into subtasks and assembling an optimal skill portfolio.
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。
Benchmark LLM reference recommendation capabilities by verifying every cited paper against Crossref, PubMed, arXiv, and DBLP. Measures hallucination rate, per-field accuracy (title/author/year/DOI), discipline breakdown, and year constraint compliance. Supports tool-augmented (ReAct + web search) mode. Use when the user asks to evaluate, benchmark, or compare models on academic reference hallucination, literature recommendation quality, or citation accuracy.
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。
Recherche, cartographie et analyse des thèses de doctorat françaises via theses.fr (API ABES) et TEL (HAL). Spécialisée droit avec filtrage par sous-disciplines juridiques. Ouverte sur d'autres domaines universitaires. Capacités : (1) recherche multi-critères — sujet, directeur, jury, établissement, école doctorale, période, statut soutenue/en préparation, discipline ; (2) cartographie académique — qui dirige sur quel sujet, qui siège dans quels jurys, réseaux de co-direction, écoles doctorales productives ; (3) analyses temporelles — évolution d'un sujet, détection de saturation, calendrier des soutenances à venir ; (4) filtrage sous-discipline juridique — droit privé, public, social, affaires, international, etc. Déclencher dès que l'utilisateur mentionne thèse, doctorat, directeur de thèse, jury de thèse, école doctorale, soutenance, doctorant, ou demande une analyse d'écosystème doctoral. Pour articles ou ouvrages de doctrine, utiliser plutôt recherche-doctrine.
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。
Guide for creating effective skills. Use when users want to create a new skill (or update an existing skill) that extends the model's capabilities with specialized knowledge, workflows, or tool integrations.
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。
Evaluate completed mediation-competition problems consisting of general information and confidential packets for both sides. Use when asked to validate, audit, score, quality-control, or assess competition readiness; identify factual, numerical, chronological, authority, commercial-logic, or confidentiality defects; test mediation usefulness, BATNAs, settlement corridors, information asymmetry, and opportunities for firmness, cooperation, imagination, and clarification; or produce an author-only validation report. Perform a qualified partial review when packets are missing. Diagnose by default; do not generate a new problem or edit source packets unless repairs are expressly requested. Requires access to all supplied files and a host capable of reading their formats; otherwise disclose the unreviewed material and resulting limits.
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 structure design, firm selection criteria, right-sourcing analysis, and coverage gap assessment for in-house legal teams. Build panel frameworks from scratch or formalise existing informal arrangements. Define weighted selection criteria for firm evaluation. Run right-sourcing analysis (ABC tiering) to identify work sent to expensive providers that doesn't require that level of resource. Assess existing panels for practice area, geographic, and capability gaps. Trigger on: 'design our panel', 'how many firms do we need', 'panel structure', 'firm selection criteria', 'which firms should we use', 'right-sourcing', 'are we sending work to the right firms', 'panel gaps', 'too many firms', 'consolidate our panel', 'we need a firm for', 'preferred provider', 'panel tiers', 'do we need BigLaw for this', 'convergence', 'D&I panel targets', 'how do we choose 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。
Turn a lawyer's bounded expertise, workflow, review standard, or legal judgment pattern into a safe, inspectable legal AI skill. Use when a user provides legal memos, comments, checklists, negotiation notes, review habits, compliance playbooks, or professional feedback and wants a reusable Lawve-style skill. Do not impersonate the lawyer or claim to reproduce a person; distill only authorized, source-bounded capability.
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。
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。
Framework for demonstrating AI capabilities in legal contexts. Provides detailed personas across tenant law, business contracts, startup disputes, employment claims, and consumer protection with progressive complexity scenarios. Use when: (1) Demonstrating AI-powered legal triage or intake systems, (2) Showcasing responsible AI-assisted client interactions, (3) Training staff on appropriate AI use in legal contexts, (4) Creating realistic scenarios for legal tech presentations, (5) Developing educational materials about AI in legal services, or (6) Testing AI-powered legal information systems in controlled environments.
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。
Condense a scholarly legal article by moving nonessential detail from the body into substantive footnotes while preserving every word and keeping the argument self-sufficient. Handles Markdown and Word (.docx), integrates moved material with existing notes, measures a user-specified relegation fraction (25% by default), and delivers a move-by-move memo. Use when asked to "push detail into footnotes," "relegate to footnotes," "footnote the caveats," "move the digressions down," or tighten a dense draft without deleting content. Word output requires file access plus document-conversion and rendering support; when those capabilities are unavailable, deliver Markdown and the memo or ask for a convertible source.
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。
Analyses contracts for risk across five critical clauses (Limitation of Liability, Indemnities, IP Ownership, Data Protection, Termination). Built for founders with no legal background. Flags red flags, explains risks in plain language, and provides negotiation guidance.
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。
Build students' capacity to read historical documents closely — attending to word choice, tone, and rhetoric as evidence of perspective. Use when students summarise sources without analysing language.
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。
Build students' capacity to place historical documents in their temporal and social context. Use when students read sources without considering what was happening at the time, or know the context but don't deploy 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。
Build students' capacity to compare accounts across multiple historical sources — identifying agreements, contradictions, and gaps. Use when students treat individual documents as complete answers rather than partial perspectives.
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。
Build students' capacity to interrogate a historical source before reading — asking who authored it, when, why, and what this means for reliability. Use when students read documents without attending to authorship.
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。