「law」の検索結果

Outside counsel guidelines (OCGs) — drafting, review, gap analysis, and targeted updates for in-house legal teams. Build new OCGs calibrated to maturity level (light, standard, comprehensive), review existing OCGs against 15-component best practice framework, add or update specific sections (AI policy, AFA terms, D&I, rate review), and produce GC briefing notes for internal buy-in. Trigger on: 'draft billing guidelines', 'outside counsel guidelines', 'OCG', 'billing expectations', 'review our guidelines', 'update the AI clause', 'what should our billing guidelines cover', 'we don't have billing guidelines', 'firms aren't following our guidelines', 'rate review terms', 'GC briefing on billing guidelines', 'AFA policy', 'block billing', 'prohibited fees', 'staffing expectations for outside counsel'.

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。

Generates a formal, structured AI Act compliance assessment report suitable for legal files, audit trails, and regulatory inquiries. This skill should be used when the user asks to "generate an AI Act report", "create a compliance assessment report", "document the AI Act analysis", "create a Prüfbericht", "export as Word document", or wants to consolidate prior AI Act skill outputs into a formal documented 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。

Depth assessment of whether an AI system is high-risk under Art. 6 of the EU AI Act, grounded in the Commission's draft Art. 6(5) classification guidelines (general principles + Annex I + Annex III). Covers the Annex I product-safety route, all eight Annex III areas with worked examples, the Art. 6(3) exception and its profiling re-exception, and the Art. 25 quasi-provider trap. Outputs a structured decision block, a practitioner memo, and a JSON interchange artefact.

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 and operationalize implementation readiness for high-risk AI systems under the EU AI Act Annex III, including provider and deployer obligations, conformity assessment, post-market monitoring, and EU database registration. Use when users say things like “we classified this as high-risk, what now?”, “build an EU AI Act readiness plan”, “assess our Annex III compliance gaps”, “what do providers/deployers of high-risk AI need to implement?”, “prepare for conformity assessment”, or “create a high-risk AI implementation roadmap.”

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 Knowledge Engine — authoritative regulatory Q&A grounded in 70 official EU source documents (including the 2026 Commission draft guidelines on Art. 6 high-risk classification — general principles, Annex I, Annex III). Answers any question about the AI Act with article-level citations from the full regulation text, Commission guidelines, EDPB/EDPS opinions, codes of practice, harmonised standards, FRIA guides, incident templates, and sector-specific guidance. This skill should be used when the user asks about the "EU AI Act", "AI Act regulation", "Regulation 2024/1689", "KI-Verordnung", asks to "explain an AI Act article", "what does Article X say", "AI Act requirements", "AI Act penalties", "AI Act timeline", "GPAI obligations", "high-risk AI", "prohibited AI practices", "AI Act and GDPR", "fundamental rights impact assessment", "AI Act standards", "AI Act national implementation", "AI literacy", "serious incident reporting", "Digital Omnibus", "AI regulatory sandbox", or any question about EU artificial intelligence regulation. Also triggers on German terms: "KI-Gesetz", "KI-Verordnung", "Hochrisiko-KI", "KI-Kompetenz", "Grundrechte-Folgenabschaetzung", "GPAI-Verhaltenskodex". For assessment workflows that produce a classification decision rather than a knowledge answer, offer to run a structured risk-tier classification in-session.

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。

Maps the full set of legal obligations for the EU AI Act based on role + risk tier, producing an actionable compliance matrix with RACI assignments and implementation priorities. This skill should be used when the user asks to "map AI Act obligations", "check what we need to do under the AI Act", "create a compliance checklist", "check deployer obligations", "assess provider duties", or mentions Art. 26, Art. 16-17, AI literacy Art. 4, DPIA, fundamental rights assessment, or "Pflichtenkatalog" under the AI Act.

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 guidance for FedRAMP certification and compliance under CR26 (FedRAMP Consolidated Rules for 2026). Use this skill whenever a user asks about FedRAMP authorization, ATO (Authority to Operate), cloud security for federal government, NIST SP 800-53 controls, CSP compliance, or any of the core FedRAMP document types: SSP, SAP, SAR, POA&M, CIS/CRM workbooks. Also trigger for questions about FedRAMP Certification Classes (A, B, C, D — new baseline labels: A = pilot/transitional, B = LI-SaaS/Low, C = Moderate, D = High, per NTC-0004), FedRAMP 20x (now the primary authorization pathway), OSCAL mandate (September 2026), 3PAO assessments, continuous monitoring (ConMon), gap assessments, system boundary definition, or architecture reviews for federal cloud. FedRAMP Ready retires July 28, 2026. When in doubt, use this skill — it covers the full FedRAMP lifecycle from readiness through continuous monitoring.

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。

Fast 15-25 minute triage for preliminary EU AI Act classification and compliance assessment. This skill should be used when the user asks to "do a quick AI Act assessment", "check if the AI Act applies to us", "run a preliminary classification", "do an AI Act triage", "quick check", "preliminary assessment", "Schnellprüfung", "Ersteinschätzung", or needs a fast initial assessment before committing to full analysis.

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。

AFA design, scope-to-fee matching, negotiation preparation, health check, and scope dispute assessment for in-house legal ops teams managing outside counsel arrangements. Design fee structures (fixed, capped, collar, blended, phased, success). Assess whether scope supports a proposed AFA. Prepare commercial positions for fee negotiations. Review existing AFAs against delivery data. Assess OOS claims and build dispute response. Trigger on: 'structure the fee', 'move off hourly', 'design an AFA', 'does scope support a fixed fee?', 'negotiate the fee', 'renegotiate the arrangement', 'is our AFA holding?', 'fee health check', 'cap is being approached', 'firm is claiming OOS', 'is this in scope?', 'is this OOS?', 'AI should reduce the cost', 'blended rate vs fixed', 'collar arrangement', 'phased fees'.

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 calculator, financial model, investor memo, due diligence report, risk review, dashboard, or client-facing explanation needs clear distinctions between accounting and finance concepts such as cash flow vs profit, EBIT vs EBITDA, CapEx vs OpEx, debt vs equity, market value vs book value, ROI vs ROE, assets vs liabilities, and accounting vs finance.

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 which of the Art. 50(1)-(5) transparency obligations of the EU AI Act apply to a given AI system's provider or deployer, grounded in the final Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content (June 2026) and the Commission's draft Art. 50 Guidelines. Covers AI-chatbot disclosure, deepfake and synthetic-content marking/watermarking, emotion-recognition and biometric-categorisation notices, the machine-readable marking duty, the obviousness exceptions, and the implementation timeline. Outputs a formal mini-report plus a per-obligation compliance checklist with gap flags. For breadth-first tier triage use the EU AI Act System Classifier; for raw Art. 50 text and Q&A use the EU AI Act Knowledge Base; for the full role x tier matrix use the EU AI Act Obligations Mapper.

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 the organization's role (provider, deployer, importer, distributor, or quasi-provider) and assesses Art. 25 quasi-provider risk of the EU AI Act. This skill should be used when the user asks to "determine AI Act roles", "check if we are provider or deployer", "assess quasi-provider status", "check Art. 25 substantial modification", "check value chain responsibilities", or mentions "Betreiber", "Anbieter", "wesentliche Veränderung", or finetuning implications under the AI Act.

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。

Condense a scholarly legal article by moving nonessential detail from the body into substantive footnotes while preserving every word and keeping the argument self-sufficient. Handles Markdown and Word (.docx), integrates moved material with existing notes, measures a user-specified relegation fraction (25% by default), and delivers a move-by-move memo. Use when asked to "push detail into footnotes," "relegate to footnotes," "footnote the caveats," "move the digressions down," or tighten a dense draft without deleting content. Word output requires file access plus document-conversion and rendering support; when those capabilities are unavailable, deliver Markdown and the memo or ask for a convertible source.

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。

Review, draft, or redline a Data Processing Agreement (DPA / Auftragsverarbeitungsvertrag / AVV) under Art. 28 GDPR, or prepare a Joint Controller Arrangement under Art. 26 GDPR. Supports bilingual output (DE/EN), both controller- and processor-side perspectives, and two review depths — quick (Art. 28(3)(a)–(h) coverage) and negotiation-grade (clause-by-clause risk scoring).

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。

Analyses contracts for risk across five critical clauses (Limitation of Liability, Indemnities, IP Ownership, Data Protection, Termination). Built for founders with no legal background. Flags red flags, explains risks in plain language, and provides negotiation guidance.

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。

Operational billing execution for legal matters. Monthly bill prep and billing instructions, LC invoice review and disbursement treatment, client billing query responses, cashflow modelling (LC payment obligations vs client receipts), and leverage and burn analysis (staffing mix, predicted total cost, margin trajectory). Trigger on: 'prepare the bill', 'billing instruction', 'end of month billing', 'LC invoice', 'local counsel invoice', 'pass through as disbursement', 'client querying the invoice', 'billing dispute', 'cashflow gap', 'when will we get paid', 'LC payment due', 'leverage analysis', 'staffing mix', 'predicted total cost', 'burn rate by grade', 'are we on track', 'what will this matter cost'.

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 CMMC 2.0 (Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification) advisor for US defense contractors and subcontractors in the Defense Industrial Base (DIB). Use this skill whenever a user asks about CMMC 2.0, CMMC Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3, DoD cybersecurity compliance, NIST SP 800-171, CUI (Controlled Unclassified Information) protection, System Security Plan (SSP), Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M), C3PAO assessments, DIBCAC audits, self-assessment, SPRS score, or any requirement under DFARS 252.204-7012 or 7021. Also trigger for: "CMMC gap analysis", "CMMC readiness", "FCI protection", "CUI scoping", "CMMC practices", "DoD contract cybersecurity", "defense supply chain security", or "prime contractor flow-down requirements".

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 drafting cookie policies compliant with GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive. Includes CNIL 2020 recommendations, a reference template, and best practices. Use when drafting or revising a cookie policy for a website or application.

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 Section I (War Crimes) of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Citations are verified against the Court of BiH, the ICTY/IRMCT archives and OSCE. Distinguishes ICTY-referred (Rule 11 bis) cases from locally-initiated ones; covers Stanković, Janković and the Maktouf lex mitior ruling. 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。

Archéologie des sources juridiques anciennes via Gallica (BNF, API stables, sans clé) : débats parlementaires du JO depuis 1871 (genèse des lois de la IIIe République), notes d'arrêt et doctrine d'origine dans les recueils Sirey et Dalloz, Bulletins civil et criminel anciens, Recueil Lebon, JO Lois et décrets 1881-2015, thèses et traités du XIXe-début XXe, Gazette des tribunaux, Bulletin de l'Inspection du travail. Déclencher dès que l'utilisateur cherche l'origine historique d'un texte, d'un concept ou d'une jurisprudence : « débats de la loi de 1884 », « note de Josserand », « que disait la doctrine en 1900 », « première apparition de la notion de… », « généalogie / histoire de l'article… », « arrêt ancien », « thèse d'avant-guerre », « Gallica », « BNF », ou toute recherche juridique antérieure aux bases modernes (Légifrance ne remonte pas avant l'époque contemporaine, Judilibre non plus). Déclencher aussi en COMPLÉMENT de travaux-preparatoires quand la loi étudiée est antérieure à 1958.

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。

Perform language and framework specific security best-practice reviews and suggest improvements. Trigger only when the user explicitly requests security best practices guidance, a security review/report, or secure-by-default coding help. Trigger only for supported languages (python, javascript/typescript, go). Do not trigger for general code review, debugging, or non-security 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。

Assistant juridique expert en droit français. Recherches, consultations, rédaction d'actes, contre-argumentaires, analyses de contrats et de pièces, veille, vérification et harmonisation de références. Produit des documents Word (computer use) ou des réponses conversationnelles structurées. MCP : OpenLegi, Themia, LegalDataHunter. Déclencher pour toute question juridique, tout concept de droit français (contrat, responsabilité, jurisprudence, code civil, tribunal, indemnisation), toute question sur le droit de l'UE, la CJUE ou la CEDH, et toute demande de vérification ou harmonisation de références bibliographiques juridiques.

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。