本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

advance-health-care-directive

Drafts jurisdiction-specific Advance Health Care Directive packages with agent appointment, living will instructions, HIPAA authorization bridge, organ donation preferences, and execution compliance checklists. Trigger when the user mentions advance directive, healthcare proxy, living will, health care agent, HIPAA authorization, medical power of attorney, end-of-life planning, capacity trigger planning, state-specific directive forms, witness/notary requirements for healthcare documents, or cross-state directive portability.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(2)

  • SKILL.md9.9 KB
  • LICENSE.txt10.5 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Advance Health Care Directive

Produces a jurisdiction-aware, clinically actionable directive package — agent appointment, treatment instructions, HIPAA bridge, execution checklist — that an ER team can parse in under 60 seconds and that survives legal challenge. Grounded in state probate/health codes with HIPAA (45 C.F.R. § 164.508) overlay.

Directives fail when they lack state-specific execution formalities (legally void) or use vague language like "no heroic measures" (clinically useless). This skill eliminates both failure modes.

Quick Start

  1. Gather intake (Checkpoint A)
  2. Map state law and validate inputs
  3. Draft directive sections in fixed order
  4. Verify execution compliance
  5. Produce final package with front matter
  6. Confirm alignment (Checkpoint B)

Checkpoint A — Pre-Draft Intake

Gather every time unless user says "use defaults" or "just draft":

  1. Jurisdiction — primary residence state, expected care states, portability needs
  2. Draft scope — directive + agent + living wishes + revocation + execution; confirm attorney review required
  3. Capacity context — contested capacity concerns → flag for contemporaneous capacity memo
  4. Client identity — legal name, DOB, aliases, contact, diagnosis context
  5. Agent architecture — primary + alternates with contact, availability, conflicts, consent to serve
  6. Treatment preferences — CPR, ventilation, feeding/hydration, hospitalization goals, comfort care, palliative sedation, religious/cultural restrictions
  7. Existing documents — prior directives, POLST/MOLST, donor registry, POAs, guardianship orders
  8. Execution logistics — signing location, notary availability, witness constraints, facility rules, spouse/relative limitations
  9. Conflict screening — family tensions, beneficiary pressure, undue influence indicators → flag to attorney

Request: prior directives, POLST/MOLST, POAs, guardianship orders, organ donation registrations, relevant medical records. If missing, flag explicitly and proceed with labeled assumptions listing "Open Items / Needed Inputs."

Defaults (if no response): immediate-authority directive; primary agent + one alternate; comfort-focused treatment; forum-neutral template with state execution formalities marked [VERIFY JURISDICTION]; standard HIPAA authorization bridge.

Step 1 — Validate Intake and Map State Law

Build the jurisdictional scaffold before drafting.

Intake Validation Table

Data BlockRequired FieldsVerification
Client profileName, DOB, aliases, residence, contactSpelling consistency across blocks
JurisdictionPrimary state, secondary care states, portability[VERIFY] execution/effectiveness rules per statute
Capacity postureRed flags, physician assessment needsFlag for contemporaneous memo if risk present
Agent chainPrimary + up to 2 alternates, relationships, contact, disqualificationsNo disqualified classes under local statute
Treatment valuesScenario-based preferences, values hierarchy, palliative directivesNo contradictory instructions
Legal/medical interfacesPOLST/MOLST, donor registry, prior directivesReconcile conflicts; harmonized set
Execution logisticsWitness sources, notary method, facility constraintsJurisdiction-specific affidavit/attestation language
Delivery planCopy recipients (agent, PCP, facilities, portal)Distribution checklist

State-Law Scaffold

TopicConfirm
Governing statuteControlling statute + official form/guidance URL
FormalitiesWitness vs. notary options, count, disqualifications, facility add-ons
Trigger mechanicsSpringing vs. immediate; incapacity standard; certifying clinician count
Substantive scopeDefinitions: terminal, incurable, persistent unconsciousness
LimitationsPregnancy restrictions, mental health authority, substance/HIV record limits
RevocationPermitted methods and effective timing
Provider protectionReliance rights for copies/electronic versions; good-faith immunity

Step 2 — Draft Directive Sections

Use this fixed section order with clinically interpretable language throughout:

  1. Purpose statement and effective date
  2. Health care agent appointment — trigger and scope
  3. Successor agent ladder — availability/unavailability conditions
  4. Written values statement and decision-making hierarchy
  5. Treatment instruction matrix — scenario-based, not abstract
  6. HIPAA authorization bridge — effective immediately unless state requires otherwise
  7. Organ donation / disposition-of-remains
  8. Revocation, supersession, and severability
  9. Provider reliance and transfer obligations (if conscience objection possible)
  10. Execution block — signature/witness/notary/acceptance

Key Drafting Patterns

Agent appointment: identify client, appointed agent with relationship and full contact, trigger condition per state law, scope of authority (consent/denial, admission/discharge, transfer, record access). Written instructions control over discretionary choices; unspecified matters use stated values and substituted-judgment standard.

Successor agents: each assumes authority only when all prior agents are unavailable/unwilling/disqualified per state rules.

HIPAA bridge: authorize agent and alternates to access all PHI immediately upon execution for incapacity determination and care coordination. Scope covers all providers, facilities, labs, insurers. Mark [VERIFY: 45 C.F.R. § 164.508 and state/Part 2 overlays].

Treatment preferences: state goals (comfort/pain control, loved-one contact, avoid futile prolonged treatment), then specific positions on CPR, ventilation, artificial nutrition/hydration, hospitalization, comfort care with explicit palliative direction.

Revocation: revocable while capable by state-authorized methods; latest version governs; severability clause; copies/electronic versions per state law.

Step 3 — Execution Compliance Verification

ItemRequired Output
WitnessingCorrect count, disqualification screening completed
NotaryForm matches state-prescribed language
Facility patientsFacility-specific add-ons satisfied (ombudsman/patient advocate)
Agent acceptanceOptional acceptance statement included
UsabilityKey instructions identifiable in <60 seconds (ER context)
Internal consistencyNo contradiction between agent powers and treatment instructions
Review tagsEvery statutory claim marked [VERIFY] unless confirmed by statute URL

State-Specific Flags

  • Use state templates/forms where required or recommended
  • Flag for attorney: CA facility witness/ombudsman rules, FL witness composition, NY split-instrument systems, TX hospital review for withdrawal over family objections
  • Pregnancy limitations and mental-health authority are state-sensitive and case-law unstable

Step 4 — Produce Final Package

Every output begins with mandatory front matter:

  1. Assumptions Used — jurisdiction, trigger type, agent chain, treatment posture, key facts
  2. Open Items / Needed Inputs — missing documents, unresolved questions, unverified citations

Deliverables

  1. Complete advance health care directive document
  2. Execution compliance checklist (filled)
  3. Distribution plan with recipient list
  4. State-specific notes and [VERIFY] items for attorney review

Checkpoint B — Post-Draft Alignment

Ask after delivering the initial package:

  1. Does the agent chain and trigger mechanism match client intent?
  2. Are treatment preferences correctly stated — especially CPR, ventilation, feeding/hydration?
  3. Any family members or situations needing special handling in the values statement?
  4. Should the directive harmonize with an existing or new POLST/MOLST?

If no response, recommend next best refinement and proceed if authorized.

Quality Audit

  • Jurisdiction identified and state-law scaffold completed
  • Agent chain: primary + at least one alternate with full contact
  • Treatment preferences are scenario-specific (no "no heroic measures")
  • HIPAA authorization bridge included with confirmed effective date
  • No contradiction between agent powers and treatment instructions
  • Execution formalities match state requirements (witness count, disqualifications, notary)
  • Portability addressed if multi-state care
  • Every statutory citation verified or marked [VERIFY]
  • Assumptions and open items in front matter
  • Key instructions locatable in <60 seconds
  • No invented facts, diagnoses, relationships, or statutory language

Guidelines

  • Never rely on memory for state execution formalities — require statute URLs or official guidance
  • Mark unresolved jurisdictional questions [VERIFY]; never finalize as final legal language
  • Use scenario-specific, clinically interpretable wording; ban vague slogans
  • Client instructions override broad surrogate discretion (values hierarchy)
  • Treat portability as a design requirement, not a footnote
  • Legal structuring only — do not advise on clinical decisions
  • Refuse fraud, backdating, or fabrication requests
  • Attorney review required — include disclaimer and execution-readiness statement
  • Ethics: Model Rules 1.1 (competence), 1.14 (diminished capacity), 1.6 (confidentiality)

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

中国大陆地区法院类案快速检索与《案件检索报告》(DOCX)生成技能。以案件五项要点(案由/法律关系、争议焦点、关键事实、我方诉请与诉讼地位、请求权基础法条)为检索锚点,经一次四问确认即开工(其中**检索地域范围**与**裁判时间范围**为强制选择题,默认范围为「2021年1月1日以后裁判的浙江省范围内的法院案例」,用户点选默认后须回显该范围提示);按**请求权基础、法律关系、案件事实三要素**判定高匹配——用户**指定**检索特定结果的案例时结果相似度计入评分(四要素满分 10 分),用户**未指定**时结果相似度不作为高匹配考虑因素(三要素满分 8 分);r1 判定须**核对法条版本与时间效力**,援引已失效旧法条者不得给满分;以语义向量检索为主召回、精确结构检索为条件兜底,本地脚本加权打分后按「得分率 > 法院层级 > 审判程序 > 裁判日期」排序,并检测**同院同日同标题的重复入库**案件、疑似重复者不占入报名额;截取匹配度最高的 5–10 例类案,逐案调详情核验案号并摘录判词原文,最后直接输出含页脚页码的 DOCX 报告(默认保存至桌面)。全流程人工确认 1 次、检索类调用控制在 2 次召回 + ≤10 次详情以内,报告阶段检索冻结。未指定结果时三要素高匹配而结果相反者亦会入报(逐例标注结果方向),指定结果时结果相反者一律剔除;报告内以两处固定声明披露「未设不利先例定向检索路径」的局限。当用户要求「快速检索类似案例」「找几个正向案例」「快速版案例检索报告」「检索 5 到 10 个类案并出报告」「出一份类案检索报告 docx」时使用。需要四象限归位、反向案例定向检索、补充召回多轮迭代或 14 分制硬软条件精判时,应使用完整版技能「案例检索报告Plus」而非本技能。基于华宇元典法律数据 MCP。

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。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

88查企业风险查询与分析工具 —— 专注于中国大陆企业的法务风险查询与分析,覆盖经营异常、行政处罚、监管措施、被执行人、失信被执行人、司法案件等风险类型。支持公司名称、统一社会信用代码、companyId 三种输入方式,自动完成风险查询并输出结构化风险分析总结。 触发场景:仅当用户意图为查询企业风险/法务风险时触发。包括但不限于:企业风险查询、公司风险、经营异常、行政处罚、监管措施、被执行人、失信被执行人、司法风险、风险扫描、风险评估、企业合规审查、风险报告、XX公司有什么风险、XX公司安全吗、XX公司有没有处罚、XX公司被执行过吗。 不触发场景:纯粹的企业信息查询(如查公司、搜企业、工商信息、注册资本、法人代表、股东结构、专利商标等)不应触发本技能,请使用其他 cha88 系列工具。

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。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

Manages Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative deposition workflows — drafting notice topics with reasonable particularity, building examination outlines, defending designees, handling objections, and preserving binding admissions for summary judgment or trial. Use when drafting or responding to 30(b)(6) notices, selecting and preparing designees, building topic-by-topic outlines, or triaging scope and privilege disputes. Trigger keywords: 30(b)(6), corporate representative deposition, topic list, designee, notice analysis, deposition objections, corporate admissions.

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。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

Guides taking and defending Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative depositions. Drafts topic lists with reasonable particularity, builds examination outlines for binding corporate admissions, analyzes noticed topics for objections, and prepares designees. Use when drafting 30(b)(6) notices, preparing corporate deposition topics, selecting or preparing designees, or defending corporate representative depositions.

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。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

Drafts FDA 510(k) Premarket Notification submissions demonstrating substantial equivalence under 21 CFR Part 807. Supports Traditional, Special, and Abbreviated pathways. Use when preparing Class II medical device regulatory filings, substantial equivalence analyses, or FDA premarket submissions.

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。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

Drafts a recordable Abstract of Judgment to create a judgment lien on a debtor's real property. Extracts party names, monetary components, and judgment details from case documents, then applies jurisdiction-specific formatting and certification requirements. Use post-judgment in commercial litigation when enforcing monetary awards, perfecting judgment liens, or preparing lien filings with the county recorder.

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。

CSlawyer1985/legal-skillhub152026年9月23日 更新

CSlawyer1985 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する