「live」の検索結果

Assess whether Government of India approval is required for foreign investment in an Indian company under Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and the Non-Debt Instruments Rules, 2019. The skill systematically gathers transaction details, evaluates sectoral entry routes and caps, assesses land border country restrictions under applicable laws, and delivers a preliminary compliance note. Produces clear guidance on whether the investment falls within Automatic Route or requires Government approval.

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。

Turns a legal question, a set of draft questions, or source material such as a statute, jury instruction, rubric, contract checklist, or coding manual into a battery of narrow questions that TypeSafe's Jev, a fast classifier that returns probabilities rather than prose, can answer reliably across many documents. The skill breaks conclusions such as negligence, felony murder, or standing into element-level questions, writes the governing rule into each question, and delivers the questions alone, in Jev's request format or in plain English. Built for legal work that asks the same questions of many texts: coding statutes across jurisdictions, coding opinions or case files for empirical research, checking contracts against a review checklist, screening intake narratives, and grading student work against a rubric. Use when asked to write Jev questions, build a classifier for legal documents, or turn a legal test into yes-or-no questions. Running the questions requires Jev access; writing them does not.

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。

Rigorous multi-pass editor for law review articles, student notes, seminar papers and other legal scholarship. Runs six specialized passes — structure, substantive critique, Bluebook citations, grammar and clarity, fact-checking against sources, and a synthesizing memo — and delivers an editorial memo with issues prioritized as critical, substantial or minor and keyed to specific footnotes and paragraphs. Handles articles of any length, including 50,000-word pieces, by chunking on section boundaries. Reads .docx directly. Use when editing, critiquing, workshopping or pre-submission-reviewing academic legal writing. Triggers on "edit my article," "review this draft," "critique my note," "check my Bluebook citations," "is my argument sound," "read my law review piece," "workshop this paper," "pre-submission review." Chunking needs Python 3; fact-checking needs web search; both degrade gracefully without.

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。

Takes a skill — a .skill or .zip archive, a bare SKILL.md, a folder, or just a raw idea — and produces a package ready for public distribution on lawve.ai, plus the exact entries for the submission form. Runs a gate first: skills with no plausible legal use, unsafe code, or licensing bars are declined with reasons, and general-purpose skills that could serve legal work are offered a legal adaptation instead. Then applies the standard compliance transforms — structure, metadata, attribution, dependency ladders, orphaned-file repair, limitations disclosure — validates the result, and delivers a zip. Raw ideas are gated first, built (via skill-creator where available), then adapted. Use for "make this Lawve-compliant," "prep this skill for Lawve," "package for lawve.ai," "is this suitable for Lawve," "get my skill ready to publish," or any request to ready a skill for the Lawve catalogue.

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 Digital Regulation Legal Analysis Forge — generates a tailored expert prompt for structured legal analysis of an EU digital-regulation document, optionally executes it in-session, and always produces a plain-English explainer alongside the formal output. Handles Regulations, Directives, Commission Guidelines, EDPB Opinions, CJEU and AG judgments, national DPA decisions, codes of conduct, and draft consultations across the EU digital stack.

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。

Transforms reading-oriented prose into listening-optimized text for flat, neutral vocal delivery — TTS, podcasts, audiobooks, CLE audio. Carries a legal layer: case citations, section symbols, subsection lettering, Latin terms and footnotes are unspeakable as written, so a brief, opinion, statute, contract or memo needs them expanded, restructured or stripped before it can be listened to — and quoted authority is never rewritten. Use when converting written content for audio, preparing oral argument by ear, producing CLE or client-facing audio, or making a document listenable on a commute. Triggers on "make this listenable," "convert for audio," "optimize for reading aloud," "prepare for TTS," "make an audio version," "podcast script," "read this aloud." Supports English, French, Spanish, Italian, German and Portuguese; outputs plain text, ElevenLabs audio tags, or SSML for Amazon Polly, Google or Azure.

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。

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。

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。

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。

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。

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。

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。

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。

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。

Determines whether a technology qualifies as an AI system under Art. 3(1) of the EU AI Act and classifies its risk tier (prohibited, high-risk, GPAI with systemic risk, limited risk, minimal risk). This skill should be used when the user asks to "classify an AI system under the AI Act", "determine the AI Act risk tier", "check if something is an AI system", "assess prohibited practices", "check high-risk classification", "determine Art. 6 exception applicability", or mentions "KI-Verordnung", "Risikoklassifizierung", Art. 5, Annex III, or GPAI systemic risk.

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。

Practitioner skill for advising on EU Regulation 2023/2854 (Data Act). Covers Chapters II-VII (IoT data access, mandatory B2B sharing, unfair contract terms, public-sector exceptional need, cloud switching, third-country governmental access) and Chapter VIII (interoperability and smart contracts, gate-only). Use when the user asks about Data Act rights or obligations, drafts a Data Act notice or letter, reviews a data-sharing or cloud-switching contract under the Data Act, runs a Data Act gap analysis, or asks how the Data Act interacts with GDPR, the DMA, the Trade Secrets Directive, or sectoral law. Triggers include "Data Act", "Datengesetz", "Regulation (EU) 2023/2854", "Art. 4(1) request", "Art. 5(1) third-party request", "trade-secret handbrake", "cloud switching obligations", "Chapter VI", "Ch V exceptional need", and references to specific Data Act articles or recitals.

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。

California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) compliance advisor — business threshold analysis, consumer rights fulfillment (access, delete, correct, opt-out of sale/sharing, limit SPI, ADMT opt-out), privacy notice drafting, service provider vs. contractor vs. third-party classification, sensitive personal information (SPI) handling, data minimization, opt-out mechanisms (including GPC), cybersecurity audits and risk assessments (live since Jan 1, 2026), ADMT obligations (effective 2026, deadline Jan 1, 2027), CPPA enforcement (Disney $2.75M, PlayOn $1.1M, Ford $375K), penalty exposure, GDPR comparison, and gap assessments for businesses operating in or targeting California residents.

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。

Turn an interpretive-ambiguity audit of a legal text — contract, statute, regulation, or judicial opinion — into a polished deliverable. Produces a multi-page website (default), a single-page interactive site, a Microsoft Word document, a PowerPoint deck, or a LaTeX/PDF. Use whenever a user has a stress-test result, ambiguity audit, or "where will this be litigated" scenarios and wants to publish, present, or share them. Triggers on "publish the audit," "make a report from this," "turn this into a website / deck / brief / Word doc," "make a Netlify site," "build slides of these ambiguities," "render the scenarios," "package this stress test," "produce a LaTeX version," and similar. Pairs with the ambiguity-stress-test skill (the underlying analysis) but works on any structured or semi-structured ambiguity analysis. Visual design is opinionated but the user can override colors, fonts, and brand label. Most formats need Python and a writable filesystem; single-file HTML works where the host has neither.

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。

When you paste raw human input — a call transcript (Grain, Zoom, Granola, Fathom), a text or email from a client/partner/friend, a voice-memo dump, or meeting notes — and want it converted into structured work. Extracts decisions, action items (yours vs theirs), bugs/feature requests, and facts worth keeping; files GitHub issues in the right repo, captures to the second-brain vault, and drafts (never sends) the reply. Triggers on "/ingest", "ingest this", "here's my call with X," "here's the transcript," "this is from [person]," "[person] asked me this," "from [person]:", a pasted transcript with speaker labels, or a forwarded client message that clearly expects processing. Person→project routing lives in a private config; unknown senders get asked about once, then remembered.

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 you want to brainstorm and check available .com domains for a new project — brand naming, aftermarket pricing (HugeDomains / Afternic / Sedo / Dan), USPTO trademark screening, and social handle availability. Built on Laura Roeder's "work backwards from availability" method. Combines Vercel CLI, whois, Domainr, Namecheap, and agent-browser, each for what it reliably does. Workflow: budget → brainstorm → availability check → whois cross-check → price → aftermarket sweep (plus liveness probe and drop-watch) → bucket → negotiate → trademark + socials → buy. Triggers on "/domain," "find a domain," "check domain availability," "brainstorm a domain," "what .com is available for X," "domain hunt," "name my project," "is X.com available," "aftermarket price on X.com," "trademark check for 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。