「draft」の検索結果

Audit whistleblower systems and draft compliant reporting policies. Use when assessing or building whistleblower programs.

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 with escalation detection. Use when drafting legal responses.

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。

Audit Microsoft Word (.docx) documents for heading hierarchy, comments, tracked changes, broken cross-references, and style consistency. Use when reviewing a contract draft, preparing a document for handoff, or enforcing a style guide.

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。

Plan, sequence, and pressure-test internal announcements before they send. Use when announcing a reorg, policy, or product change, drafting an all-hands or exec update, or deciding who hears what and in which order.

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。

AI leadership advisor on AI strategy, governance, risk, investment, and org design. Use when defining an AI strategy, building an AI governance program, scoring AI maturity, or drafting an AI risk register.

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 business documents — contracts, proposals, SOWs, NDAs, MSAs — with jurisdiction-aware clauses for US, EU, UK, and DACH. Use when starting client engagements, writing proposals, drafting agreements, or needing GDPR-compliant DPAs.

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 a reply to one customer review, voice-scored, with escalation flags. "reply to this 1-star review"

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。

Mine a real story like a client win into 3-5 content angles with draft openings. "is there a post in this"

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。

Score one piece via eval-runner on six dimensions with a fix list. Many pieces → eval-suite. "score this draft before it ships"

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。

Lock one primary goal per brand and judge ideas or drafts against it. "does this fit our goal"

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。

Repurpose one content piece into 10+ channel formats with drafts and a calendar. "repurpose this blog post"

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。

Respond to a breaking PR crisis: severity, holding statement, stakeholder messages, timeline. "draft a holding statement fast"

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 content in brand voice through a gated pipeline: blogs, ads, emails. Brief only → content-brief. "write a blog post about X"

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 a client proposal or RFP response: scope, deliverables, KPIs, pricing tiers. "respond to this RFP"

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 a teacher-drafted central historical question for its capacity to drive genuine historical inquiry. Use when assessing whether a question will generate real evidence-weighing or produce shallow responses.

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 (a) auditing an existing whistleblower system or (b) drafting a compliant reporting policy from a provided template. Covers EU Directive 2019/1937, the amended Sapin II law (Waserman 2022), Decree 2022-1284, CNIL guidelines, public sector requirements, and duty of vigilance.

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。

Scope management for legal matters — baseline capture, in-flight change control, OOS documentation, and scope retrospective. Use when asked to review scoping assumptions, assess whether work is in or out of scope, draft a scope change notice, track scope changes, prepare an OOS justification, run an OOS report, prepare a scope call agenda, or review what changed on a matter. Trigger on: 'scope change', 'out of scope', 'OOS', 'scope creep', 'is this in scope', 'the client wants us to also', 'additional work', 'scope review', 'what changed from the original scope', 'we need to revisit the quote', 'the budget assumed', 'OOS report', 'scope call with the client', 'run a scope report'.

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。

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。

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。

Build dependency network and critical path from a matter plan. Produce an interactive Gantt, flag near-critical tasks, and run what-if cascade scenarios when delays occur — showing programme impact and drafting communications. Produces filtered workstream or jurisdiction views for local counsel. Trigger on: 'build a timeline', 'Gantt chart', 'critical path', 'what if X is delayed', 'what moves if', 'schedule impact', 'how does this affect the programme', 'when do we finish', 'can we still close on time', 'if we miss this deadline', 'run a what-if', 'visualise the plan', 'Germany timeline', 'what does the Employment workstream look like', 'timeline for local counsel', 'just show me the [workstream] tasks'.

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, report, and manage serious incidents involving high-risk AI systems under Article 73 EU AI Act. Covers incident qualification, deadline buckets (2/10/15 days), authority notification, deployer duties (Art. 26(5)), cross-regulation mapping (GDPR/NIS2/MDR), corrective measures, and DACH-specific routing. Use when asked to evaluate whether an AI incident is reportable, draft an Article 73 notification, identify the right authority, or build an AI incident response process.

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。

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。