「legal」の検索結果

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。

Sanctions and export control analysis tool for Claude Desktop. Real-time individual screening across 30+ official lists (UN, EU, OFAC, OFSI, French DGT...), sectoral analysis, dual-use goods (EU Reg. 2021/821), US/China extraterritorial regimes (EAR, ITAR, FDPR, ECL), USD/SWIFT risk and jurisdictional mapping across 30+ countries. All results sourced and verified in real time — no memory-based answers. Responds in French, English, German, Spanish, Russian and Chinese. Updated 19 May 2026 (EU 20th package, UK SEUC, Cuba EO). Indicative guidance only — 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。

Critically assess and improve a legal scholarly thesis, article idea, student note, seminar-paper claim, or research agenda using Eugene Volokh's novelty, nonobviousness, utility, and soundness framework, connector-aware research, claim-specific tests, and a sustainable adversarial pass. Produces a self-contained green-, yellow-, or red-light report. Use when a law professor or law student asks whether a claim is viable, novel, publishable, preempted, useful, worth pursuing, or better than competing topics; or wants a thesis stress-tested, narrowed, repaired, or compared. No connector is required: use connected legal and scholarly research when available, public sources otherwise, and disclose any no-research fallback.

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。

Adversarial verification of AI-generated legal content with systematic fact-checking, source validation, and quality control. Use when a user asks to verify, fact-check, red-team, validate sources, or quality-control a legal document, briefing, compliance summary, or regulatory analysis before it is distributed to clients, stakeholders, or published. Trigger phrases include "verify", "fact-check", "red team", "red-flag", "check accuracy", "validate sources", "quality control", "is this correct", and "review for errors". Produces a structured verification report with severity-categorized errors, verified sources, unsupported claim list, missing disclaimers, and an explicit distribution-readiness assessment.

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。

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。

Prepare structured briefings for meetings with legal relevance and track resulting action items. Use when preparing for contract negotiations, board meetings, compliance reviews, or any meeting where legal context, background research, or action tracking is needed.

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。

Pre-flight privilege and work-product check for legal AI prompts. Use when the user is about to send legal content to a third-party AI surface (ChatGPT, Claude.ai, Copilot, Gemini, etc.) and wants to know whether the prompt risks blowing attorney-client privilege or work-product protection. Returns a SAFE/CAUTION/STOP band with cited factors, a discovery-impact line, and a redacted-safe rewrite.

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。

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。

Asistente jurídico experto en derecho chileno. Úsalo cuando el usuario haga consultas sobre normativa, códigos, procedimientos o jurisprudencia de Chile y necesite respuestas fundamentadas con cita de ley y artículo y una fuente verificable (BCN). No usar para derecho de otros países ni como reemplazo de asesoría legal formal. Funciona SIN base de datos externa: responde con el conocimiento del modelo, por lo que debe marcar toda incertidumbre y remitir a la fuente oficial para verificación.

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。

GDPR Legitimate Interest Assessment (LIA) — Guided assessment for Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR using the EDPB three-step test. Based on EDPB Guidelines 1/2024, EDPB Opinion 28/2024 (AI models), the OSS Case Digest on Legitimate Interest (McIntyre 2026), CNIL AI guidance (June 2025), ICO guidance, and key CJEU case law. Use when: (1) user needs to assess whether legitimate interest is appropriate, (2) user asks about Art. 6(1)(f), "Interessenabwägung", "berechtigtes Interesse", "balancing test", or "LIA", (3) user wants to document a legitimate interest assessment, (4) user mentions the three-step test, (5) user evaluates necessity or proportionality under Art. 6(1)(f), (6) user discusses direct marketing, fraud prevention, IT security, employee monitoring, AI training, web scraping, or credit checks in context of legal basis, (7) user handles a right to object (Art. 21), (8) user asks about children's data, profiling, or cross-border data sharing under legitimate interest, (9) user compares legitimate interest against other legal bases. Do NOT use for: consent assessments (Art. 6(1)(a)), contract performance (Art. 6(1)(b)), DPIA workflows, or pure ePrivacy/cookie compliance questions — though the skill does address the ePrivacy/GDPR overlap where relevant.

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 the transition from legal AI output to reliance, recommendation, execution, or real-world commitment. Use it before an AI-generated analysis, memo, contract review, compliance finding, or workflow output is acted upon to check whether authority, evidence, mandate, uncertainty, procedure, and review conditions remain sufficient.

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。

Mandatory external verification workflow for ALL non-trivial factual claims before presenting them as true. This skill MUST be used whenever Claude is asked to research any topic, answer factual questions, provide current information, draft documents containing factual claims, give legal advice or cite legal authority, discuss current events or public figures, provide technical or scientific information, state statistics or data points, or answer ANY question where the answer could have changed over time. Also trigger when the user asks Claude to 'check', 'verify', 'confirm', 'research', 'look up', or 'find out' anything, or when the user needs information that requires freshness, precision, or source accuracy. This skill overrides any default tendency to answer from memory. If a task involves stating facts, citing sources, or providing current information — 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。

Rigorous multi-pass editor for law review articles, student notes, seminar papers and other legal scholarship. Runs six specialized passes — structure, substantive critique, Bluebook citations, grammar and clarity, fact-checking against sources, and a synthesizing memo — and delivers an editorial memo with issues prioritized as critical, substantial or minor and keyed to specific footnotes and paragraphs. Handles articles of any length, including 50,000-word pieces, by chunking on section boundaries. Reads .docx directly. Use when editing, critiquing, workshopping or pre-submission-reviewing academic legal writing. Triggers on "edit my article," "review this draft," "critique my note," "check my Bluebook citations," "is my argument sound," "read my law review piece," "workshop this paper," "pre-submission review." Chunking needs Python 3; fact-checking needs web search; both degrade gracefully without.

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 jurisdiction-grounding reference file for AI assistants working on Gibraltar legal, regulatory, and compliance research. Corrects systematic errors AI models make when applying English law to Gibraltar — a distinct jurisdiction under the Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006, with its own court hierarchy, civil procedure rules, employment law, and regulatory framework. Covers the source hierarchy, court structure, civil procedure divergences (14-day deemed service, post-Jackson reforms not adopted), employment law specifics (uncapped discrimination awards, 5-employee redundancy threshold), FSC financial services regulation, AML/KYC compliance sources, Gibraltar Companies Act 2014 with UBO public register, and a structured directory of official public record sources. Includes research profiles for lawyers, compliance professionals, and due diligence practitioners. 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 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。

Use for due diligence, legal-financial risk review, investment or business transaction checklists, and preliminary screening where facts, documents, assumptions, legal uncertainty, debt/equity, assets/liabilities, contracts, tax, regulatory, compliance, technology/product, and financial-model issues must be separated clearly.

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。

Contract intelligence and contract operations workflow skill for Claude and Codex. Guides the full contract lifecycle review process from intake and playbook normalization through clause review, deviation scoring, negotiation planning, approval routing, QA, and action recommendations. Reviews legal, business, operational, compliance, privacy, security, technology, and AI-related risks across contracts and legal documents. Supports NDAs, SaaS agreements, DPAs, procurement contracts, commercial agreements, contract comparisons, redlines, approval packages, clause research, and drafting. Warning-Comprehensive reviews can consume significant Claude/OpenAI tokens, especially for large agreements, playbooks, exhibits, schedules, and multi-document reviews.

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。

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。

Use when a lawyer, legal team, or client needs to assess AI agents that can act on someone's behalf: send messages, search, draft, file, pay, delete, connect to accounts, use tools, or rely on external data. Produces a practical delegation, oversight, accountability, and control audit for legal 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。

Use this skill when the user wants an AI governance, legal-risk, privacy, compliance, procurement, or vendor-risk review of an internal AI use case, an AI product feature, an LLM workflow, or a third-party AI vendor. The skill asks intake and clarifying questions first when facts or evidence are missing, identifies required documentation and missing evidence, maps the use case to AI governance frameworks and applicable legal domains, and produces a preliminary or final governance review with scorecards, findings, owners, remediation actions, and follow-up questions.

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。

Generate templated responses for common legal inquiries and identify when situations require individualized attention. Use when responding to routine legal questions — data subject requests, vendor inquiries, NDA requests, discovery holds — or when managing response templates.

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。