「every」の検索結果

Set up or update the brand profile every skill reads: voice, audience, compliance. "set up a new brand"

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。

Show status of every tracked campaign: health, spend, executions, pending approvals. "what campaigns are running right now"

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 writing agent-relay workflows that must fully validate features end-to-end before merging. Covers the 80-to-100 pattern - going beyond "code compiles" to "feature works, tested E2E locally." Includes repair-before-failure validation gates, review-depth fresh-eyes review/fix loops with test hardening, PGlite for in-memory Postgres testing, mock sandbox patterns, test-fix-rerun loops, verify gates after every edit, and the full lifecycle from implementation through passing tests to commit.

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。

Verify a BibTeX file for hallucinated or fabricated references by cross-checking every entry against CrossRef, arXiv, and DBLP. Reports each reference as verified, suspect, or not found, with field-level mismatch details (title, authors, year, DOI). Use when the user wants to check a .bib file for fake citations, validate references in a paper, or audit bibliography entries for 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。

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。

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。

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。

When the user wants to set up a recurring, self-running marketing workflow — a repeatable loop an AI agent runs on a cadence (weekly, daily, on a trigger) rather than a one-off task. Also use when the user mentions 'marketing loop,' 'recurring marketing workflow,' 'automate my marketing,' 'marketing on autopilot,' 'weekly marketing review,' 'ad fatigue check,' 'content refresh loop,' 'churn watch,' 'ranking drop alert,' 'always-on marketing,' 'marketing automation workflow,' or 'run this every week.' Use this to pick, adapt, and schedule an ongoing marketing loop that orchestrates the other marketing skills. For one-off marketing ideas, see marketing-ideas. For the experimentation loop specifically, see ab-testing.

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。

Content fades and rises gently as it enters the viewport — the calm default reveal. Reveal a few key blocks, not everything; keep travel small. Instant under prefers-reduced-motion.

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。

Letters fly in from everywhere and settle into the word. A bold, canvas-based effect from Open Design's html-ppt fx pack — for slides and launch videos. Guards prefers-reduced-motion (does not start). One per screen; on web use sparingly.

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。

Drafts a customized Customer Agreement starting from the Y Combinator standard form SaaS template. Tailors the agreement through structured intake questions covering fee structure, data handling, ML rights, implementation services, and more. Applies 18 always-on defaults that transform the raw YC form into a professional starting point (renamed to "Customer Agreement", data privacy section added, warranty restructured, consolidated SLA/support exhibit, etc.). Produces a clean .docx and a lawyer-facing memo explaining every change from the YC standard. Use when user says "draft a SaaS agreement", "YC SaaS", "startup SaaS contract", "customer agreement", "SaaS subscription agreement", or "I need a SaaS agreement starting from the YC form". Also trigger when the user is a startup founder discussing SaaS contracting, even if they don't mention YC specifically.

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。

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。

Use when an application or system — including one built quickly with AI coding agents — needs a security review with regulatory grounding: a STRIDE threat model, a LINDDUN privacy threat model, a dependency exposure screen against live CVE / CISA-KEV / EPSS data, or a selected, non-exhaustive screen of which EU security obligations (GDPR, NIS2, Cyber Resilience Act, AI Act) may apply and which need determination. Orchestrates the server-enforced threat-modeling workflows of the Ansvar Gateway MCP connector and grounds every regulatory statement in officially published text fetched at answer time — scope, role, and application-date limits stated, never a compliance verdict. Never simulates a workflow and never answers legal questions from model memory.

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。

Screen a client, counterparty, payer or corporate against the sanctions lists published by the designating authorities themselves — the UK Sanctions List (FCDO), OFSI, the UN Security Council, the EU consolidated list and OFAC's SDN and non-SDN lists. Use when onboarding, before taking a payment, before completing a transaction, or whenever a name must be checked against sanctions. Produces candidates and provenance, never a clearance: the record names every list searched with its publication date and count, states what was NOT searched, and ends at a blank decision block. Fails closed — a cache that is missing, damaged, truncated or stale is reported NOT SEARCHED and the process exits non-zero, so nothing can read an incomplete run as clean. Matches across transliteration, diacritics, homoglyphs and initials, because nobody spells a name the way the publisher does. Standard library only; screening opens no network connection.

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。

A zero-hallucination privacy-policy generator that takes anyone — non-lawyer founder to lawyer — from a guided intake to a publishable, jurisdiction-aware privacy policy. Jurisdiction-first: it detects which laws apply from where your users are, then drafts only the required clauses — GDPR/EU + UK, US (CCPA/CPRA, ~20 state laws, COPPA, sector overlays), and global/MENA (LGPD, Quebec Law 25, India DPDP, China PIPL, UAE/DIFC, Saudi PDPL), plus app-store, cookies, and AI/EU AI Act disclosures. Its rule: state only what you confirm; never invent a statute, citation, fine, or date — every claim is source-cited and QA-gated. 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。

Use when a security incident, data breach, or actively exploited vulnerability raises the question "who must we notify, where, and by when?" Screens one incident across the EU reporting regimes — NIS2, GDPR, DORA, and the Cyber Resilience Act — determines which duties fire for each involved entity's roles, resolves the receiving authority per regime and member state from served national law, and produces a deadline table in which every duty, authority, and deadline is cited from official publisher text fetched live through the Ansvar Gateway MCP connector. Never answers from model memory.

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。

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。

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。

Use when a user asks what the EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) means for their product, whether and when they must report a vulnerability or incident, or what a specific CVE triggers legally. Maps a product with digital elements to CRA scope, product classification, Annex I vulnerability-handling duties, and Article 14 reporting obligations — every legal claim cited from official regulation text fetched live through the Ansvar Gateway MCP connector, joined with live CVE / CISA-KEV / EPSS vulnerability intelligence from the same connector.

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 litigation chronology from the disclosure bundle itself — every entry attributed to its source document, behind a CPR 31.22 implied-undertaking check, because documents disclosed in English proceedings may only be used for those proceedings. Adds a privilege screen and case-theory significance tagging, so the output is court-facing work product, not a loose timeline. Use when the user asks to build a chronology or timeline from a disclosure bundle, a matter file, or witness statements, or says 'build the chron', 'what happened when', or needs a Statement of Facts ready timeline.

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。