「raft」の検索結果

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。

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。

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。

Reviews animation and motion code against a high craft bar derived from Emil Kowalski's design engineering philosophy. Default to flagging; approval is earned.

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 the user wants to create, generate, edit, or optimize images for marketing — blog heroes, social graphics, product mockups, profile banners, listing visuals, or brand assets. Also use when the user mentions 'AI image generation,' 'generate an image,' 'create a graphic,' 'product mockup,' 'hero image,' 'social media graphic,' 'banner image,' 'cover photo,' 'profile banner,' 'listing screenshot,' 'Flux,' 'Flux Kontext,' 'Midjourney,' 'DALL-E,' 'GPT Image,' 'ChatGPT Images,' 'Ideogram,' 'Gemini image,' 'Nano Banana,' 'Recraft,' 'Stable Diffusion,' 'Canva,' 'Figma,' 'image optimization,' 'compress images,' 'WebP,' or 'OG image.' Use this for general-purpose marketing image creation and optimization. For paid ad image creative and platform-specific ad specs, see ad-creative. For video production, see video.

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。

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。

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。

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。

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。

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。

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。

A zero-hallucination privacy-policy generator that takes anyone — non-lawyer founder to lawyer — from a guided intake to a publishable, jurisdiction-aware privacy policy. Jurisdiction-first: it detects which laws apply from where your users are, then drafts only the required clauses — GDPR/EU + UK, US (CCPA/CPRA, ~20 state laws, COPPA, sector overlays), and global/MENA (LGPD, Quebec Law 25, India DPDP, China PIPL, UAE/DIFC, Saudi PDPL), plus app-store, cookies, and AI/EU AI Act disclosures. Its rule: state only what you confirm; never invent a statute, citation, fine, or date — every claim is source-cited and QA-gated. 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。

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。

Draft GDPR/DSGVO-compliant privacy notices as .docx for any EU/EEA jurisdiction and audience. Use when user asks to create a privacy policy/notice, mentions "Datenschutzerklärung", "politique de confidentialité", "privacy notice", needs Art. 13/14 disclosures, AI Act transparency, cookie policy, or notices for applicants ("Bewerber-Datenschutz"), employees ("Beschäftigten-Datenschutz"), B2B partners, or B2C customers. Covers DE (DSGVO+BDSG+TDDDG), FR (RGPD+LIL+LCEN), AT, IT, ES, NL, BE, IE, UK GDPR. Five notice types: Website/App, Applicant, Employee, Business Partner, B2C Customer.

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 a lawyer for an adversarial proceeding the way Neal Katyal's "Harvey" prepared him for the SCOTUS tariffs argument: profile the tribunal from their prior opinions and questions, predict the specific questions you will face, map narrow "escape routes" each judge can walk through without abandoning prior commitments, and spar adversarially until only the strongest answers survive. The model is the sparring partner. The human still wins the case. Use when: preparing for oral argument, appellate argument, motion hearing, evidentiary hearing, deposition (taking or defending), arbitration, mediation, or any proceeding where a known decision-maker will fire questions at you in real time. Also useful for stress-testing a brief before filing. Proactively suggest when: the user mentions an upcoming hearing/argument with named judges or arbitrators, drafts a brief and wants it pressure-tested, asks "what will Justice X / Judge Y ask me," or talks about preparing for a specific bench.

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 a legal document against legal design principles. Scores the document on six pillars: language patterns (bureaucratese, archaisms, passive voice, nominalization), readability (Flesch Reading Ease and language-specific equivalents), structure and navigation, hidden conditions (material obligations buried away from their headings), statutory duplication (restating the law instead of citing it), and visual hierarchy where layout is available. Assessment-only; does not rewrite the document. Works on English, French, and German documents, inferring the applicable jurisdiction from the document's language and textual signals: governing-law clause, statute citations, party addresses. Use when a user shares a legal document (contract, NDA, T&C, privacy policy, internal policy) asking how good the drafting is from a legal design perspective, whether it is readable, whether it contains buried clauses or restates the law, or how it scores on Flesch / LIX / Amstad / Kandel-Moles readability metrics.

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。

Restructure any rough build, research, or legal-drafting request into an IRAC-shaped prompt — Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion — optimized for a frontier model. It's the bar-exam framework, repurposed as prompt engineering. The skill leads with the issue and ends with the conclusion (where models weight attention most), forces you to name your constraints and non-goals, and specifies what "good" looks like before a single token is generated. Use it before any non-trivial build, or whenever a vague ask deserves a precise brief.

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。