「scope」の検索結果

Use when the user has evaluation principles or a dataset but needs help choosing the right graders, designing evaluation metrics, creating LLM-as-judge prompts, combining multiple metrics into a composite score, or building an automated evaluation pipeline. Also use when the user mentions grader selection, metric design, judge prompt engineering, rubric design, evaluation pipeline code, or "how to evaluate [X] automatically." Outputs executable OpenJudge pipeline code.

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 has run multiple evaluation skills and wants a comprehensive analysis — maturity assessment, cross-skill signals, trends, prioritized actions, and an executive summary. Also use when the user mentions eval health check, evaluation audit, ship readiness, evaluation maturity, or "how good is my evaluation system itself." This is a read-only analysis 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。

Use when the user wants to build an evaluation system for an LLM/agent application but doesn't know where to start — they have traces, prompts, RAG pipelines, or nothing at all. Also use when the user mentions evaluation, eval, benchmarking, testing LLM quality, measuring agent performance, assessing RAG accuracy, or wants to compare prompts/models. This skill is the entry router: it asks diagnostic questions then recommends which sub-skill (local workflow) to use next.

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 an attorney-facing knockout/availability trademark search across the United States and Canada. Use whenever a user (founder, client, or attorney) asks whether a brand, mark, name, logo, slogan, or product name is "available," "free to use," "clearable," or "already taken" — or asks Claude to "search the trademark register," "check USPTO," "check CIPO," "do a knockout search," "clearance search," "availability search," or "see if [mark] is trademarked." Trigger even when the user phrases it casually ("can I call my company X?", "is this name taken?"). Covers federal USPTO (TESS/TSDR), federal Canada (CIPO), common-law/web/state, and WIPO Madrid international. Output is a knockout availability memo with green/yellow/red verdict for attorney review. Includes professional-responsibility gating (AI-use disclosure, conflict check, scope confirmation) before substantive analysis. Not legal advice — produces work product for attorney sign-off.

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。

RAID log methodology with decision extraction from emails and meeting notes. Use when asked to identify risks, log assumptions, track issues, extract decisions from correspondence, create or update a RAID log, escalate a risk to an issue, assess project risks, validate or challenge assumptions, or capture scope-relevant decisions. Also triggers when the user pastes email chains and asks what decisions were made, or needs to find buried decisions and untested assumptions in correspondence. Trigger on: 'risk report', 'RAID log', 'what are the risks', 'what decisions were made', 'update the risk register', 'what assumptions are we making', 'what could go wrong', 'flag any issues', 'extract decisions from these emails'.

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。

Audits legal AI skills, prompts, workflows, MCP/tool instructions, and agent packages for prompt injection, malicious instructions, unsafe scripts, suspicious metadata, credential exposure, exfiltration paths, persistence mechanisms, and supply-chain risk. Use before installing, importing, publishing, promoting, modifying, or trusting third-party or generated AI skills and legal workflows. Do not use as a generic code review unless skill trust, workflow safety, prompt injection, or supply-chain hygiene is in scope.

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。

Determines whether a specific AI-agent action, output, recommendation, or proposed commitment remains admissible for execution or institutional reliance under current authority, delegated scope, evidence, facts, policy, risk, escalation, and revocation conditions. Use this Skill before an enterprise or regulated AI agent executes, updates records, triggers workflows, communicates externally, or before an institution relies on an agentic output in a way that creates consequence.

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。

First-pass framework for reading, interpreting, and structuring statutory analysis of US federal, state, and local law. Produces draft analysis for attorney review — not legal advice. Use this skill whenever the user references a specific US statute, regulation, ordinance, or rule by citation, asks "what does [statute X] require," asks for compliance scoping, applicability thresholds, requirement extraction, exemption analysis, definitional analysis, federal preemption analysis, or multi-state comparison — even if they don't explicitly ask for "statutory analysis." Halts and asks for missing inputs rather than guessing. Out of scope for non-US law.

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。

Convert agreed scope into a structured matter plan — phases, workstreams, milestones, dependencies, owner assignments, and matter setup decisions. Use when planning a new matter, running a kickoff, building a workstream plan, structuring phases, setting up task codes, or producing a plan to drive status reporting. Trigger on: 'build a plan', 'matter plan', 'project plan', 'what are the phases', 'workstream plan', 'how do we sequence this', 'who owns what', 'task codes', 'matter setup', 'workstream plan', 'matter plan', 'rolling wave', 'plan the next phase', 'what comes first', 'kickoff agenda'.

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。

Performs a legal compliance audit for a Moroccan e-commerce website, focused on personal data protection (Law 09-08) and consumer contract disclosures/obligations (Law 31-08). Use this skill when a user asks to audit, check, or assess the legal compliance of an e-commerce website operating in Morocco — presence and validity of Terms & Conditions, privacy policy, CNDP declaration, mandatory disclosures, right of withdrawal, consent banner. Out of scope: compliance for other countries, Meta/Google advertising compliance (covered by another skill), definitive legal advice (results are a starting point for professional review, 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。

NIS2 Compliance Navigator — scope classification, Art. 21 gap analysis (0-4 maturity scoring), and compliance roadmap under EU Directive 2022/2555 with deep German BSIG-neu coverage and profiles for Italy, France, Netherlands, Austria, Spain. Use when: (1) User mentions "NIS2", "NIS-2", "BSIG", "BSIG-neu", "NIS2UmsuCG", "Cyberbeveiligingswet", "Loi Résilience", "NISG", "decreto legislativo 138", (2) User asks if their organization falls under NIS2 or needs a cybersecurity compliance assessment, (3) User mentions essential/important entities, Annex I/II, BSI registration, § 30 BSIG, incident reporting, management body liability, supply chain security, (4) User wants a NIS2 gap analysis, readiness assessment, or compliance roadmap, (5) User asks about NIS2 fines, enforcement, or Nachweispflicht, (6) User asks about NIS2 in any EU Member State.

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 health assessment, firm exit management, coverage gap analysis, and panel refresh brief for in-house legal ops teams. Produce an annual Panel Health Report synthesising scorecard data, billing compliance, and step-out patterns into per-firm recommendations — Retain, Watch, Improvement Plan, or Exit Review. Produce a firm exit pack: formal exit notice with active matter transition plan, plus an internal exit record. Identify practice area, geographic, or tier gaps and produce a structured Coverage Gap Report with remediation options. Produce a Panel Refresh Brief as a scoped input to the RFP process. Trigger on: 'review our panel', 'annual panel review', 'is our panel working', 'which firms should we exit', 'write the exit notice', 'coverage gap', 'we don't have anyone for restructuring', 'refresh the panel', 'panel rationalisation', 'too many firms', 'step-out problem', 'do we have the right 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。

Expert PCI DSS compliance advisor covering PCI DSS v4.0.1 (current) and v4.0. Use this skill whenever a user asks about PCI DSS, payment card security, cardholder data protection, CDE scoping, SAQ types (A, A-EP, B, B-IP, C, C-VT, P2PE, D), ROC, AOC, QSA assessments, ASV scans, merchant levels, service provider levels, network segmentation, penetration testing, tokenisation, encryption of PAN data, or any of the 12 PCI DSS requirements. Also trigger for questions like "are we PCI compliant?", "how do I scope my CDE?", "which SAQ applies to us?", "what changed in PCI DSS v4.0?", "how do I prepare for a QSA audit?", or any request involving payment data security, cardholder data environment, or PCI certification readiness.

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。

Firm-matter matching, matter instruction drafting, firm onboarding checklist, and instruction audit for in-house legal ops teams. Match a new matter to the right panel firm by practice area, jurisdiction, complexity, and cost tier. Produce a structured matter instruction with scope, timeline, budget, staffing, and reporting requirements. Generate an onboarding checklist covering conflict clearance, engagement letter, OCG acknowledgment, e-billing setup, and platform access. Audit an existing instruction for completeness and produce a remediation note. Trigger on: 'which firm should handle this', 'instruct the firm', 'write the instruction', 'matter instruction template', 'onboard the firm', 'set up the matter', 'conflict check', 'e-billing setup', 'is our instruction complete', 'review our instruction', 'instruction gap', 'allocate this matter'.

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 obligations under Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 for connected products, related services, statutory B2B data sharing, unfair data-contract terms, exceptional-need B2G requests, data-processing-service switching, international governmental access, interoperability, smart contracts, enforcement, and non-EU representatives. Use for Data Act scope analysis, gap assessments, product and service design, request handling, contract review, cloud exit planning, or cross-regulation mapping.

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。

Adversarially stress-tests a legal text — a contract, statute, regulation, or judicial opinion — for interpretive ambiguity: it finds the seams where the people governed by it will later disagree about what it means and turns each into a concrete dispute scenario with both sides' arguments, the likely outcome, and a fix. Use it whenever someone wants to pressure-test, red-team, audit, or find weak spots, loopholes, gaps, ambiguities, or drafting problems in a legal document; whenever a drafter wants to tighten a contract, statute, regulation, or opinion before it issues; whenever a litigator wants to mine an opinion or contract for arguments; or whenever someone hands over a legal text and asks where it will be fought over or for issue-spotting. Trigger it for contract review, statutory-ambiguity analysis, judicial-opinion scope analysis, and drafting QA — even if the user never says "stress-test" or "ambiguity."

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 budgeting and ongoing WIP/variance monitoring. Build phase-based fee estimates at matter setup, run bottom-up budgets by jurisdiction or workstream, calculate contingency, and structure AFA arrangements (fixed fee, capped fee, phased fixed fees). Ongoing monitoring: WIP tracking against budget, proportionality assessment (spend vs progress), variance commentary with root cause analysis, forecast-to-complete, realisation monitoring, write-off analysis. Trigger on: 'build a budget', 'fee estimate', 'what will this cost', 'WIP review', 'budget vs actual', 'how are we tracking against budget', 'we're over budget', 'realisation is poor', 'what's our ETC', 'budget for the German workstream', 'model the financial impact of this scope change', 'draft a fee adjustment', 'write-off analysis', 'how much contingency', 'AFA structure', 'fixed fee estimate', 'budget update', 'forecast to complete'.

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 CSRD (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, EU 2022/2464) compliance advisor. Use this skill whenever a user asks about CSRD, European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), double materiality assessment, sustainability reporting obligations, ESG disclosure, CSRD scope and thresholds, value chain reporting, XBRL digital tagging, third-party assurance, CSRD gap assessments, CSRD implementation timelines, ESRS E1–E5 environmental standards, ESRS S1–S4 social standards, ESRS G1 governance, CSRD vs GRI/TCFD/SASB alignment, or any EU corporate sustainability reporting question. Trigger even if the user only mentions "ESG reporting Europe", "sustainability disclosure EU", or "non-financial 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。

Map a scoped topic across three coexisting horizons — current system under strain (H1), preferred future (H3), and transition innovations sorted as H2+ or H2- — to understand change dynamics and identify responsible next actions.

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。

Seven-role depersonalised panel review of framework artefacts (KUD, criterion bank, LT definition, crosswalk, scope-and-sequence) in sequential-isolation mode. Gate rule mean>=88 AND no role<70.

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。

Synthesise completed KUD charts into a developmental progression matrix and per-competency narrative sections. Use when you need a programme-level view of how knowledge, understanding, and performance develop across bands.

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。