「question」の検索結果

Modélise le raisonnement juridique d'un magistrat français pour l'analyse de dossiers civils. Utiliser ce skill pour analyser un litige et identifier les questions juridiques, construire un raisonnement juridique structuré (syllogisme), rédiger une motivation de jugement civil, rechercher la jurisprudence et les textes applicables via Judilibre et Légifrance, qualifier juridiquement des faits et actes, distinguer prétentions, moyens et arguments. Basé sur les Fiches méthodologiques de rédaction du jugement civil (ENM/Cour de cassation, 2023).

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。

NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 compliance advisor — all 20 control families (AC, AT, AU, CA, CM, CP, IA, IR, MA, MP, PE, PL, PM, PS, PT, RA, SA, SC, SI, SR), Low/Moderate/High baseline selection, FIPS 199/200 system categorization, control tailoring and overlays, privacy controls (PT family), supply chain risk management (SR family), assessment procedures (SP 800-53A), OSCAL, RMF integration (SP 800-37), and mapping to FedRAMP, FISMA, CMMC 2.0, and ISO 27001. Use for any federal system security controls, FISMA compliance, RMF step guidance, control narrative writing, or baseline tailoring question.

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 NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) advisor covering all four functions: GOVERN, MAP, MEASURE, MANAGE. Use this skill whenever a user asks about NIST AI RMF, AI risk management, AI trustworthiness, GOVERN function, MAP function, MEASURE function, MANAGE function, AI RMF Playbook, AI risk profiles, responsible AI, AI bias management, AI transparency, AI explainability, AI reliability, AI safety, NIST AI 100-1, AI risk assessment, AI incident response, or alignment to EU AI Act, ISO 42001, or NIST CSF via AI RMF. Trigger even if the user doesn't say "skill" — any NIST AI RMF or AI governance risk question should 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。

Apply the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (NIST AI 100-1 + the NIST AI 600-1 Generative AI Profile) to a specific AI system, governance question, or impact assessment. Three modes — consult, governance plan, full assessment — all cite Subcategories (`GOVERN 1.1`) and Profile Action IDs (`GV-1.2-001`) verbatim. Use when the user mentions the AI RMF, NIST RMF, NIST AI 100-1, NIST AI 600-1, GenAI Profile, the four functions (Govern / Map / Measure / Manage), the trustworthy AI characteristics, the 12 GAI risks (confabulation, harmful bias, information integrity, CBRN, data privacy, etc.), or asks "what does NIST say about X" for an AI system.

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。

Expert NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) advisor covering CSF 2.0 and CSF 1.1. Use this skill whenever a user asks about NIST CSF, cybersecurity risk management, the six CSF functions (Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, Recover), CSF profiles, implementation tiers, gap assessments, organizational profiles, community profiles, CSF core subcategories, informative references, or mapping to other frameworks (NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001, CIS Controls, COBIT). Also trigger for questions like "how do I implement NIST CSF?", "what does CSF 2.0 change?", "help me build a CSF profile", "how do I assess my cybersecurity posture?", or any request involving organizational cybersecurity risk strategy or framework alignment.

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 New Zealand Information Security Manual (NZISM) advisor for NZ government agencies and their supply chains. Use for NZISM control guidance, gap analysis, agency security obligations, classification framework (Unclassified through Top Secret), security risk management, system certification, and GCSB/NCSC NZ compliance. Triggers on: NZISM controls, NZ government security, GCSB compliance, agency cybersecurity obligations, NZ classification markings, Restricted/Confidential/Secret system scoping, agency security policies, third-party supplier security, Certification and Accreditation (C&A), and any question about NZ government information security requirements or the NZISM framework.

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 asked about Icelandic employment law, labour relations, workplace rights, or collective agreements. Triggers on questions about hiring, termination, working conditions, parental leave, trade unions, collective bargaining, workplace safety, or the Félagsdómur labour court in Iceland.

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 asked to analyze how Iceland has implemented an EU directive or regulation into national law, identify gaps between EU/EEA law and Icelandic implementation, or assess Iceland's compliance with EEA obligations. Triggers on questions about EEA transposition, ESA infringement, or EU-Iceland legal gaps.

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。

Expert Australian Information Security Manual (ISM) advisor for government entities and their supply chains. Use for ISM control selection, gap analysis, system authorisation, IRAP assessment preparation, security documentation, and ASD compliance. Triggers on: ISM controls, ASD compliance, IRAP assessment, PROTECTED system scoping, Essential Eight vs ISM, system authorisation, NC/OS/ PROTECTED/SECRET/TOP SECRET classification markings, security objectives, ISM guidelines or chapters, control applicability markings, cybersecurity documentation for Australian government, and any question about the ASD Information Security Manual framework or Australian government cybersecurity obligations.

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 ISO 27001 compliance assistant for security and compliance teams. Use this skill whenever a user asks about ISO 27001 or ISO/IEC 27001, including any of the following: gap analysis, auditing, compliance assessments, control checklists, policy writing, document generation, Statement of Applicability (SoA), risk assessment, risk registers, risk treatment plans, Annex A controls, ISMS implementation, clause requirements, certification readiness, transitioning from 2013 to 2022, control implementation guidance, incident response policies, access control policies, supplier security, or any information security management system (ISMS) topic. Trigger even if the user doesn't say "skill" — any ISO 27001 or ISMS question should 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。

Expert ISO 27701 Privacy Information Management System (PIMS) compliance advisor. Use this skill whenever a user asks about ISO/IEC 27701:2025, ISO/IEC 27701:2019, privacy information management, PIMS certification, PII controller or processor obligations, privacy risk assessment, Statement of Applicability for privacy, privacy by design, data subject rights, DPIA, records of processing activities, transitioning from ISO 27701:2019, GDPR alignment with ISO 27701, or any privacy management system topic. Also trigger for questions about Annex A.1 (controller controls), A.2 (processor controls), A.3 (shared security controls), or implementing a standalone PIMS without ISO 27001. When in doubt, use this skill — it covers the full ISO 27701 lifecycle from gap assessment through certification.

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 ISO 42001 AI Management System (AIMS) compliance advisor. Use this skill whenever a user asks about ISO/IEC 42001:2023, AI governance, AI management systems, AI risk assessment, AI system impact assessment, Annex A controls for AI, Statement of Applicability for AI systems, AI policy, responsible AI, AI lifecycle management, AI incident management, AI transparency, AI bias, AI certification readiness, or any topic related to implementing or auditing an AI Management System. Also trigger for questions like "how do I become ISO 42001 certified?", "what controls does ISO 42001 require?", "how do I assess AI risk under 42001?", "what is an AIMS?", or any request involving organisational governance of AI systems, responsible AI frameworks, or AI regulatory compliance aligned to an ISO standard.

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。

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。

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。

Expert LGPD compliance advisor for Brazil's Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados (Law 13,709/2018). Use this skill whenever a user asks about LGPD, Brazilian data protection, ANPD, personal data processing in Brazil, data subject rights under Brazilian law, legal bases for processing, sensitive data handling, DPO appointment in Brazil, data breach notification to ANPD, LGPD penalties (fines up to 2% of revenue / R$50M), international data transfers from Brazil, Brazil-EU mutual adequacy (January 2026 — SCCs/BCRs no longer needed for Brazil-EU transfers), LGPD gap assessments, privacy policy drafting for Brazilian operations, DPIA under LGPD, consent management, or comparing LGPD with GDPR. Trigger for any Brazil privacy or data protection question even if LGPD is not named explicitly.

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 Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) guidance under Article 35 GDPR, EDPB Guidelines WP 248 rev.01, EDPB Opinion 28/2024 (AI), and national SA blacklists/whitelists. Triggers: "DPIA", "DSFA", "Datenschutz-Folgenabschätzung", "impact assessment", "Art. 35", "do I need a DPIA", descriptions of new high-risk processing (profiling, AI, biometrics, large-scale monitoring, special category data), Art. 36 prior consultation questions, national blacklist/whitelist queries.

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。

Expertise complète en droit français des étrangers, de l'asile et de la nationalité — entrée et visas, séjour (CESEDA livre IV, AES, étranger malade, regroupement familial, métiers en tension), éloignement et contentieux (OQTF, IRTF, rétention, référés, TA/CAA/CE), asile (OFPRA, CNDA, Dublin, CMA/ADA), nationalité et droits sociaux des étrangers (AME, PUMa, RSA, AAH, ASPA). Interroge en priorité trois connecteurs MCP complémentaires — OpenLegi (textes, jurisprudence administrative), LibreJustice (recherche sémantique tous ordres) et Legal Data Hunter (rétention/JLD, graphe de citations, statut de validité) — puis les sources officielles (Légifrance, ANEF, OFPRA, CNDA) et la doctrine associative (GISTI, Cimade, ADDE, Comede, Anafé). Déclencher dès qu'une question porte sur un étranger en France, même sans vocabulaire juridique — « papier de la préfecture », « récépissé périmé », « la CAF refuse le RSA » — et pour toute consultation, recours, note ou vérification de références dans ces matières.

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。

Export Administration Regulations (EAR, 15 CFR Parts 730-774) compliance advisor — ECCN classification across all 10 CCL categories and 5 product groups (A-E), EAR99 determination, jurisdiction analysis (EAR vs ITAR order of review), license requirement analysis via Country Chart, all license exceptions (LVS, GBS, CIV, TMP, RPL, GOV, TSU, ENC, TSR, APP, BAG, AVS, ACE), end-user/end-use controls (Entity List, Denied Persons List, Unverified List, MEU List), deemed export rules, Foreign Direct Product Rule (FDPR), de minimis thresholds, 10 General Prohibitions, SNAP-R license applications, voluntary self-disclosure, civil/criminal penalties, Export Compliance Program (ECP) design, and EAR vs ITAR jurisdiction determination. Use for any dual-use export control, CCL classification, or BIS compliance question.

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 a US employment law topic across federal, state, and city jurisdictions and produce structured research notes with proper source attribution. Use this skill any time the user asks about US employment laws, regulations, or pending legislation - from a single jurisdiction question to a 50-state survey. Triggers include phrases like "research [employment law topic]", "what are the laws on [employment topic]", "state-by-state [employment topic]", "help me understand [topic] across the US", or any prompt that asks for a legal landscape overview before another deliverable. Always run this BEFORE the employment-law-dashboard skill if a dashboard is the eventual output. Output is a structured research note that distinguishes primary sources (statutes, regs, agency guidance) from secondary sources (law firm alerts, tracker orgs).

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 AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) compliance advisor — risk classification across all four tiers, all 9 prohibited practices (Art. 5, including the nudification/CSAM prohibition from Dec 2, 2026), all 8 Annex III high-risk use case areas, provider and deployer obligations (Arts. 9–17, 26), GPAI model obligations including the July 2025 Code of Practice (Arts. 51–55), conformity assessment and CE marking (Arts. 43–48), EU AI database registration, Art. 50 transparency (chatbots, synthetic media, AI-generated content), governance (AI Office, AI Board), penalties (Art. 99), confirmed phase-in timeline (Digital Omnibus adopted June 29, 2026: Annex III deferred to Dec 2, 2027; Annex I to Aug 2, 2028), and cross-framework mapping to ISO 42001, NIST AI RMF, and GDPR. Use for any EU AI regulation, AI system classification, or AI compliance question. Current as of July 2026. GPAI enforcement powers activate August 2, 2026.

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。

Searches the domestic courts of 122 jurisdictions — 153 databases, 49 automated — for extradition and arrest-warrant surrender decisions, each in its own language and vocabulary. Answers the question no commercial database does: how are OTHER executing states treating this requesting state, or this ground? Searching by requesting state localises its name per jurisdiction (AE becomes 'Emiratele Arabe Unite' in Romania, 'Emirati Arabi Uniti' in Italy), so the sweep finds what those courts actually wrote. Every hit passes a relevance gate; every search leaves a dated report, so the research is reconstructable months later. Use when asked what foreign courts have said about surrender to a given state, whether any European court has refused extradition on prison conditions, assurances or Article 3, for comparative extradition research, or to build a foreign-authority section of an extradition argument. Not for domestic case law of the user's own jurisdiction, and never a substitute for reading the judgment.

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。