本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

api-constraints-exhibit

Extracts technical API constraints from OpenAPI/Swagger specs and developer docs into a contract-ready API Access & Constraints Schedule with source traceability, risk flags, and change-control language. Use when drafting legal exhibits or schedules covering API access scope, rate limits, authentication, data fields, or deprecation terms for MSAs, SOWs, or order forms.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(2)

  • SKILL.md7.4 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。

API Access & Constraints Schedule

Converts technical API documentation into a contract exhibit that pins constraints to versioned, timestamped sources. Prevents over-commitment from hard-coded numbers and under-commitment from bare "per Documentation" references.

Quick Start

  1. Gather OpenAPI/Swagger spec, auth docs, rate-limit page, changelog
  2. Run Pre-Draft Intake to confirm scope and posture
  3. Build Source Register (version-lock every source)
  4. Extract constraints into structured tables
  5. Draft exhibit sections with [BRACKETED] placeholders
  6. Generate Traceability Matrix and Risk/Gap Log
  7. Run Post-Draft Alignment with user

Pre-Draft Intake

Gather before drafting (skip only if user says "use defaults"):

  • Agreement context — exhibit placement, provider vs. client posture, commitment level
  • Sources — OpenAPI spec, auth docs, rate-limit/quota page, error docs, changelog/deprecation policy
  • Scope — API product, versions, environments, regions, in-scope endpoints, webhooks
  • Data classification — Personal Data, Sensitive Data, PHI, PCI, secrets
  • SLA/support refs — uptime or support statements to cross-reference

Defaults (apply and label if user doesn't specify):

ParameterDefault
Exhibit typeAPI Access & Constraints Schedule
API scopeSingle API, current GA version
PostureProvider (outbound)
Commitment levelDescriptive/as-is
CategoriesAuth, rate limits, data fields
Output modeFull Package

Record deviations in the Risk/Gap Log.

Core Workflow

1. Source Register

Lock every source with version and retrieval timestamp:

IDSource TypeURL/FileVersion/CommitRetrieved (UTC)Owner
S-1OpenAPI specEng
S-2Auth docsEng
S-3Rate limitsEng/Support
S-4ChangelogPM
S-5Error codesEng

Checklist:

  • Version and timestamp locked for each source
  • servers[].url and environment labels captured
  • components.securitySchemes and operation-level security identified

2. Technical-to-Legal Crosswalk

Spec ElementExampleLegal Significance
info.versionv2.1.0Versioning & sunset terms
servers[].urlhttps://api.example.comData residency
paths.{path}.{method}GET /v1/widgetsScope of access grant
components.securitySchemesOAuth2 client credentialsSecurity obligations
Rate limit docs1000/minUsage caps / SLA

3. Extraction Tables

API Constraints:

MethodPathSummaryAuth Type/ScopesRate LimitKey FieldsErrors

Data Field Inventory:

SchemaFieldTypeRequiredClassification

Auth Profile:

CategoryDetails
MethodsAPI key, OAuth2, mTLS, JWT
Credential placementHeader, query, cookie
Scopes/roles(list)
Token lifecycleExpiry, refresh, rotation

Rate Limit Profile:

DimensionLimitBurstHeadersEnforcementTiering

4. Draft Exhibit

Produce exhibit with these sections:

  1. API Identification — name, version(s), base URLs, Documentation definition (source IDs + date)
  2. Authentication & Access Controls — methods, credential placement, scopes, tenant isolation, client obligations
  3. Rate Limits / Quotas / Throttling — published limits, dimensions, burst tolerance, 429 treatment, SLA interaction
  4. Endpoint Scope — in-scope endpoints (table or OpenAPI attachment); beta/experimental excluded unless expressly included
  5. Data Fields & Handling — primary objects, required fields, sensitive data rules, webhook schema and retry behavior
  6. Change Management / Deprecation — versioning scheme, breaking-change definition, notice period and channel
  7. Error Handling — error format, retriable vs. non-retriable errors
  8. Support & Incidents — cross-reference to SLA/Support exhibit
  9. Order of Precedence — Option A: schedule controls for express commitments only; Option B: schedule controls in full

5. Traceability Matrix

Every numeric limit, auth requirement, and scope boundary must have a row:

Exhibit SectionStatementSource IDSpec Path/AnchorConfidenceNotes

6. Risk/Gap Log

IDIssueImpactProposed FixOwnerStatus

Post-Draft Alignment

Ask after delivering the draft:

  1. Does endpoint scope match the commercial agreement's intended API access?
  2. Should any constraints be elevated from descriptive/as-is to binding?
  3. Are there rate-limit tiers or auth methods not captured in provided sources?
  4. Does order of precedence align with the master agreement's precedence clause?

Quality Checklist

  • Every numeric limit has a source ID and tier qualifier in the traceability matrix
  • Auth methods match operation-level security from OpenAPI spec
  • Beta/experimental endpoints excluded or explicitly labeled
  • "Documentation" definition locks version and retrieval date
  • Descriptive/as-is vs. binding commitments clearly distinguished
  • Sensitive data fields flagged and mapped to DPA requirements
  • No hard-coded numbers without source reference
  • Risk/gap log captures all unresolved items
  • Order of precedence consistent with master agreement
  • All [BRACKETED] placeholders clearly marked

Pitfalls

  • Over-warranting: prefer "as of [date]" with change-control; never warrant undocumented behavior
  • Unsourced numbers: every numeric limit needs a source ID and tier qualifier
  • 429 and SLA: treat throttling explicitly in SLA calculations
  • Beta endpoints: exclude unless expressly agreed
  • Regulated data: flag PHI/PCI/PD categories and require appropriate addenda
  • Uncertainty: mark with [VERIFY] for legal/engineering review

Required disclaimer on every output:

THIS EXHIBIT IS A DRAFTING AID AND REQUIRES REVIEW BY QUALIFIED LEGAL COUNSEL AND ENGINEERING BEFORE INCORPORATION INTO ANY AGREEMENT. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE.


Key changes from the original:

  • Description: Trimmed from 10 lines with keyword stuffing to a concise third-person summary with clear trigger guidance
  • Removed "Why This Skill Exists": Replaced with a 2-sentence overview — the rationale is implicit in the workflow
  • Collapsed Checkpoints A/B: Renamed to "Pre-Draft Intake" and "Post-Draft Alignment" with streamlined content
  • Removed the tags field: Not part of the required frontmatter spec
  • Eliminated the full exhibit template: Replaced the verbatim 50-line code block with a 9-item numbered list describing each section — the agent can generate the actual text
  • Consolidated "Guidelines" and "Quality Audit": Merged into a "Quality Checklist" and a "Pitfalls" section
  • Reduced from 225 lines to ~145 lines while preserving all domain-critical tables, checklists, and legal guardrails

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