「evidence」の検索結果

Verify a ForgeCAD MJCF export in MuJoCo with dynamics, contacts, controls, joint travel, and rendered evidence before calling it simulation-ready.

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 or edit a manufacture-realistic `.forge.js` model in a project, then validate it with run, render, inspect, and export evidence.

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。

Query Open Targets for drug target validation evidence

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。

Evidence-based clinical decision support and diagnostic 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。

Challenges ideas, plans, decisions, and proposals using structured critical reasoning as devil's advocate, pre-mortem, red team, or evidence audit.

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。

Synthesize performance findings into evidence-backed recommendations and decisions

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。

Continuous product discovery research operations — picking the method that fits the question, recruiting and screening participants, building interview guides, and scoring evidence into insights. Use when planning or running discovery.

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 MDR 2017/745 compliance specialist for medical device classification, technical documentation, clinical evidence, and post-market surveillance. Use for Annex VIII classification, GSPR, clinical evaluation, EUDAMED, and UDI.

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 copy claims by script against evidence you give; without it, lists what needs proof. "can we back up these numbers"

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。

Produce the Part 5 client validation document: evidence-cited findings for client decisions. "prepare v1 findings for client 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。

Use and read this skill immediately if the user request is in any way related to SEO or a site's organic search or AI search presence. That includes site audits, rankings, keyword research, competitors, backlinks, click or traffic changes, indexing problems, crawling, redirects, sitemaps, metadata, structured data, Core Web Vitals, internal links, content opportunities, programmatic SEO, local search, Search Console or Google Analytics questions, Google update impact, llms.txt, AI search visibility in ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, or Google AI Overviews, and client SEO reporting. Routes to evidence-backed local reports through the SEO CLI and MCP server.

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。

Pick the right LLM for LEGAL TRANSLATION — translating contracts, statutes, case law, and legal correspondence across languages, including Arabic/MENA. Vendor-neutral routing triangulated from mid-2026 evidence (WMT25 human eval, SwiLTra-Bench legal-MT, multilingual-reasoning proxies, ArabLegalEval). There is NO clean legal-translation leaderboard, so this vertical is directional and treats human legal-linguist review as mandatory. Asks up to 4 quick questions (language pair, cost, speed, privacy/certification), then recommends a primary model + fallback + what to avoid + what a human must verify. Use when someone asks "which model to translate this contract/statute", "best AI for legal translation", "translate this legal doc to/from Arabic", or is about to machine-translate legal text without a fixed model.

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。

Detects prompt injection hidden in documents from the other side (pleadings, skeletons, bundles, served evidence, opponents' emails and attachments) before an AI reads them, so the model is not turned against your client. Checks word by word that the text an extractor hands the model was visibly drawn on the page: white, near-white, covered, clipped, off-page, tiny, transparent and invisible-mode text in PDF (ink test plus OCR); Word formatting resolved as Word does (styles, shading, theme colours, scaling, off-page frames, fallbacks, unused headers); HTML/CSS, RTF, email with attachments and zips, xlsx/pptx and legacy formats. Flags Unicode smuggling, text addressed to an AI and authorities found only in hidden text. Fails closed. Optional Read-tool hook. Use BEFORE any AI summary or analysis of an opposing or third-party document. Triggers: 'scan for injection', 'is this document safe', 'check the other side's skeleton', 'injection guard'.

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 premortem for England & Wales civil litigation - builds the strongest version of a case, then attacks it from four angles to find where it loses before opposing counsel does. Runs an adversarial premortem on a UK litigation matter. Builds the strongest version of the case, then attacks it from four angles — procedural, substantive, evidentiary, strategic — to find where it actually loses. Returns a ranked stress-test brief: failure scenarios, evidence inconsistencies, blind spots, mitigations, and one brutal one-sentence verdict. Use before issue, before settlement negotiations, before a litigation-funder pitch, or before deciding whether to take a case.

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 whenever a lawyer or mediator needs help analyzing a dispute for mediation purposes. This includes: reviewing case materials (pleadings, contracts, correspondence, evidence) to identify issues in dispute, summarizing each party's position and interests, conducting legal analysis of the key issues, proposing mediation strategies or settlement directions, and preparing for mediation sessions. Trigger this skill when the user mentions 'mediation', 'dispute analysis', 'settlement', 'dispute resolution', 'identify issues in dispute', 'party positions', 'mediation brief', 'case analysis for mediation', 'ADR', 'mediation preparation', 'caucus strategy', 'settlement options', or any request to analyze a conflict between two or more parties with the goal of finding resolution. Also trigger when the user uploads case files and asks for a structured breakdown of who wants what, what the core disagreements are, or how the case might settle. Even if the user doesn't explicitly say 'mediation', trigger when the context involves analyzing opposing positions in a dispute with a resolution-oriented (rather than litigation-oriented) 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。

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。

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。

Audits legal AI outputs, prompts, skills, workflows and MCP/tool instructions for fluent but unsupported reasoning, missing evidence, overconfidence, hidden assumptions, weak causal links and absent human-review gates.

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。

An end-to-end method for drafting and finalising a complex, multi-pillar regulated fintech agreement — from intake to signature. Authored from a senior fintech lawyer's manual: a licensed payment-services provider engaging a counterparty across agent cash-in/cash-out, QR payments, wallet e-payments, and a marketplace, each with its own regulatory profile. Runs five phases and fourteen steps: regulatory mapping (activity-to-licence matrix, grey-zone classification gates), architecture (framework-plus-sub-agreement structure, ring-fenced marketplace), the regulatory–commercial balance (what flexes vs what cannot), core drafting (authority, float mechanics, hard-coded regulator caps, liability — all tracking control), execution-blocker triage, and a pre-signature check closing open blockers as conditions precedent. It refuses to invent licence-specific values or draft a representation as true without executed evidence. Use it to structure, draft, negotiate, or review any regulated payments contract.

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。

Elite incident response and legal compliance guidance for data breaches under GDPR Articles 33 & 34. Use when: (1) User reports a data breach or security incident — including "is this even a personal data breach?" triage, (2) User asks about breach notification obligations or deadlines, (3) User mentions "72 hours", Art. 33, Art. 34, or notification requirements, (4) Discussion involves security incidents affecting personal data, (5) User needs breach risk assessment using ENISA methodology, (6) User mentions "Data Breach" or "Incident" or "Data Leakage" or "Ransomware" or "Exfiltration", (7) User needs to determine Controller vs Processor obligations, (8) Cross-border breach scenarios requiring Lead SA determination, (9) User needs a mitigation playbook or immediate response recommendations, (10) User needs audit-ready breach documentation (.docx) or an EDPB-template-aligned breach notification / evidence file — including follow-up and withdrawal notifications, (11) Breach involves an AI system requiring AI Act Art. 73 serious incident screening.

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。

Creates an Agent Authority Charter for enterprise or regulated AI agents before deployment. Use this Skill when a user needs to define what an AI agent is allowed to do, who delegated authority to it, what actions are permitted or prohibited, when human approval is required, what evidence must be preserved, and how the agent can be suspended, revoked, or escalated.

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 your bar comes asking "show me how you billed AI-assisted work" — and ABA 512, Florida 24-1, California, New York, and DC all have opinions out — you need an artifact that survives review. billable-time produces it. From your Claude Code session logs, it drafts reviewable time entries plus a printable HTML audit packet with: SHA-256 chain of evidence (source files + matter.yml + active disclosure pack + verifiable artifact self-hash), attorney identity and signature block, a bar-opinion disclosure pack with starter language for five jurisdictions, and content-aware deterministic narratives derived from filename and tool shape — never from prompt text by default. The tool refuses to bill on its own. --strict mode refuses to ship the artifact if any audit invariant fails (broad routes, missing attorney, missing/unverified disclosure). Comes as a Node CLI and a self-contained browser version (no backend; JSONL never leaves the page). 15 invariant tests verify the contract. AGPL-3.0.

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。

Complete prep for all three scored components of the California Bar Exam: the five written ESSAYS (13 subjects — Business Associations, Civil Procedure, Community Property, Constitutional Law, Contracts, Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence, Professional Responsibility, Real Property, Remedies, Torts, Trusts, Wills & Succession), the PERFORMANCE TEST, and the multiple-choice MBE (7 subjects). Trigger whenever someone is studying for the California bar (or the MBE) and says things like: "give me the rule for [issue]", "big issues in [subject]", "drill/quiz me on [topic]", "MBE questions on [subject]", "teach me [doctrine]", "build an attack outline", "grade my essay", "memorizable paragraph for [issue]", "performance test approach", or "make a study plan" — or names any tested essay/MBE subject in a study, memorization, drilling, or practice-question context. Also trigger when a student uploads a practice essay, PT, or question set to be graded or turned into rule blocks. When in doubt during bar prep, trigger.

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 a client instruction schedule — a plain-English, Scott Schedule-style Word table that gathers a struggling client's evidence and instructions issue by issue, with a one-page covering note. Use whenever the user asks for a "client instruction schedule", "instruction schedule", "client questionnaire", "schedule of questions for the client", "get instructions from the client on the papers", or says the client is overwhelmed and needs the case broken into manageable questions. Also trigger when asked to turn case papers into a structured request for client input. Do NOT use for court-facing Scott Schedules, pleadings, witness statements, or advice letters — this skill produces a client-facing working document only. Output is always a .docx draft for solicitor review, never a final document.

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。