「map」の検索結果

Map control, influence, and concern after systems analysis. Use when students need wise agency without being made responsible for everything.

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。

Define the scope and purpose of a complex inquiry before mapping or futures work begins. Use when a class or group needs to agree what they are investigating, who it matters to, and at what scale.

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。

Design a developmental band system mapping student growth from early childhood through upper secondary. Use when building competency-based curriculum architecture for a school or programme.

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。

Map knowledge components and skill hierarchies for a cognitive tutoring system or adaptive learning platform. Use when designing intelligent tutoring software or skill-based mastery systems.

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。

Map the epistemic structure of a subject to determine knowledge types and inform curriculum sequencing. Use when designing courses, restructuring programmes, or analysing knowledge architecture.

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 WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) advisor covering WCAG 2.0, 2.1, and 2.2 — the W3C international accessibility standards. Use this skill whenever a user asks about WCAG success criteria, conformance levels (A/AA/AAA), accessibility audits, POUR principles, accessibility statements, ARIA patterns, colour contrast, keyboard accessibility, screen reader compatibility, mobile accessibility, cognitive accessibility, WCAG 2.2 new criteria, WCAG 3.0 preview, legal requirements referencing WCAG (EN 301 549, EAA, ADA, Section 508), or mapping WCAG to accessibility laws. Trigger for any web or digital content accessibility question — even if the user doesn't say "skill" or "WCAG".

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。

Sanctions and export control analysis tool for Claude Desktop. Real-time individual screening across 30+ official lists (UN, EU, OFAC, OFSI, French DGT...), sectoral analysis, dual-use goods (EU Reg. 2021/821), US/China extraterritorial regimes (EAR, ITAR, FDPR, ECL), USD/SWIFT risk and jurisdictional mapping across 30+ countries. All results sourced and verified in real time — no memory-based answers. Responds in French, English, German, Spanish, Russian and Chinese. Updated 19 May 2026 (EU 20th package, UK SEUC, Cuba EO). Indicative guidance only — 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。

Expert NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) advisor covering CSF 2.0 and CSF 1.1. Use this skill whenever a user asks about NIST CSF, cybersecurity risk management, the six CSF functions (Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, Recover), CSF profiles, implementation tiers, gap assessments, organizational profiles, community profiles, CSF core subcategories, informative references, or mapping to other frameworks (NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001, CIS Controls, COBIT). Also trigger for questions like "how do I implement NIST CSF?", "what does CSF 2.0 change?", "help me build a CSF profile", "how do I assess my cybersecurity posture?", or any request involving organizational cybersecurity risk strategy or framework alignment.

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。

NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 compliance advisor — all 20 control families (AC, AT, AU, CA, CM, CP, IA, IR, MA, MP, PE, PL, PM, PS, PT, RA, SA, SC, SI, SR), Low/Moderate/High baseline selection, FIPS 199/200 system categorization, control tailoring and overlays, privacy controls (PT family), supply chain risk management (SR family), assessment procedures (SP 800-53A), OSCAL, RMF integration (SP 800-37), and mapping to FedRAMP, FISMA, CMMC 2.0, and ISO 27001. Use for any federal system security controls, FISMA compliance, RMF step guidance, control narrative writing, or baseline tailoring question.

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。

Apply the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (NIST AI 100-1 + the NIST AI 600-1 Generative AI Profile) to a specific AI system, governance question, or impact assessment. Three modes — consult, governance plan, full assessment — all cite Subcategories (`GOVERN 1.1`) and Profile Action IDs (`GV-1.2-001`) verbatim. Use when the user mentions the AI RMF, NIST RMF, NIST AI 100-1, NIST AI 600-1, GenAI Profile, the four functions (Govern / Map / Measure / Manage), the trustworthy AI characteristics, the 12 GAI risks (confabulation, harmful bias, information integrity, CBRN, data privacy, etc.), or asks "what does NIST say about X" for an AI system.

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。

Matter scoping across the full pre-execution arc — organise client data into a structured brief, capture the agreed baseline, or reconstruct scope mid-flight. Use when making sense of client information before a proposal, scoping a new matter, running a kickoff, defining scope, mapping stakeholders, or inheriting a matter mid-flight. Trigger on: 'make sense of this', 'structure this for the proposal', 'scope this matter', 'new matter', 'kickoff', 'what are we doing', 'who are the stakeholders', 'what does success look like', 'matter setup', 'intake', 'I've inherited this matter', 'organise this client data'.

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 when asked to translate, explain, or map Icelandic legal terms to English (or vice versa). Triggers on requests involving Icelandic legal vocabulary, legal translation, understanding Icelandic statutes or court decisions, or cross-referencing Icelandic and common law concepts.

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 India Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDPA) compliance advisor. Use this skill whenever a user asks about the DPDPA, DPDP Act, DPDP Rules 2025, India data privacy law, Data Fiduciary obligations, Data Principal rights, Significant Data Fiduciary, Data Protection Board of India, consent under DPDPA, notice requirements, breach notification India, children's data India, cross-border data transfer India, India privacy compliance, DPDPA gap analysis, DPDPA vs GDPR, or any obligation under India's personal data protection framework. Also trigger for: "Section 6 consent", "Section 7 legitimate uses", "Section 9 children's data", "Section 10 SDF", "Section 16 cross-border", "Rule 6 breach notification", "Rule 13 SDF obligations", "Data Protection Board complaint", "verifiable parental consent India", "DPDPA compliance roadmap", or "India privacy law global company".

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 compliance with the EU General-Purpose AI (GPAI) Code of Practice under the AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689). Use when asked to determine GPAI model provider obligations, assess Code of Practice compliance, evaluate transparency or copyright requirements for GPAI models, check systemic risk obligations, build a GPAI compliance roadmap, or prepare for AI Office requests. Covers all three Code chapters (Transparency, Copyright, Safety & Security), the 12 commitments and their measures, systemic risk classification (Article 51), provider obligations (Articles 53 and 55), open-source exemptions, enforcement timeline, Commission/AI Office supervision, and DACH-specific overlays such as BSI cybersecurity and works council implications. Triggers on phrases like "GPAI compliance", "Code of Practice assessment", "GPAI model obligations", "systemic risk evaluation", "AI Act transparency requirements", "GPAI copyright policy", "general-purpose AI compliance".

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 (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) compliance advisor — risk classification across all four tiers, all 9 prohibited practices (Art. 5, including the nudification/CSAM prohibition from Dec 2, 2026), all 8 Annex III high-risk use case areas, provider and deployer obligations (Arts. 9–17, 26), GPAI model obligations including the July 2025 Code of Practice (Arts. 51–55), conformity assessment and CE marking (Arts. 43–48), EU AI database registration, Art. 50 transparency (chatbots, synthetic media, AI-generated content), governance (AI Office, AI Board), penalties (Art. 99), confirmed phase-in timeline (Digital Omnibus adopted June 29, 2026: Annex III deferred to Dec 2, 2027; Annex I to Aug 2, 2028), and cross-framework mapping to ISO 42001, NIST AI RMF, and GDPR. Use for any EU AI regulation, AI system classification, or AI compliance question. Current as of July 2026. GPAI enforcement powers activate August 2, 2026.

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 obligations under Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 for connected products, related services, statutory B2B data sharing, unfair data-contract terms, exceptional-need B2G requests, data-processing-service switching, international governmental access, interoperability, smart contracts, enforcement, and non-EU representatives. Use for Data Act scope analysis, gap assessments, product and service design, request handling, contract review, cloud exit planning, or cross-regulation mapping.

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。

Assess whether a Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment (FRIA) is required under Article 27 EU AI Act, and structure or draft that assessment for a specific high-risk AI deployment. Covers deployer scope gating (public bodies and private entities providing public services), affected group mapping, Charter rights analysis, proportionality, safeguards evaluation, residual risk, DPIA/FRIA cross-referencing under the amended Article 27(4), the unconditional notification duty under Article 27(3), and DACH-specific considerations. Use when asked about FRIA obligations, Article 27 scope, fundamental rights and AI, or deployer assessment duties.

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。

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。

Use this skill when the user wants an AI governance, legal-risk, privacy, compliance, procurement, or vendor-risk review of an internal AI use case, an AI product feature, an LLM workflow, or a third-party AI vendor. The skill asks intake and clarifying questions first when facts or evidence are missing, identifies required documentation and missing evidence, maps the use case to AI governance frameworks and applicable legal domains, and produces a preliminary or final governance review with scorecards, findings, owners, remediation actions, and follow-up questions.

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。

Analyzes how multiple regulations interact for a specific product, service, or business model. Identifies where obligations overlap, reinforce, complement, duplicate, or conflict; builds a priority matrix; produces an integrated compliance timeline; and estimates the total compliance burden. Use when (1) scoping a new product or service against the full regulatory landscape before launch, (2) conducting M&A due diligence on a target's multi-regulation exposure, (3) building a strategic compliance roadmap where single-regulation analyses miss the interactions, (4) advising on complex situations where regulations touch the same conduct from different angles, or (5) estimating budget and resourcing for multi-regulation compliance. Primary coverage of EU digital regulation (GDPR, Data Act, AI Act, CRA, NIS2, DORA, DMA, DSA, ePrivacy) and national implementations; the framework extends to any jurisdiction where overlapping regulatory regimes apply to the same activity.

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。