本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

api-license-agreement

Drafts a clickwrap-ready US API License Agreement for companies licensing proprietary APIs to third-party developers. Use when drafting API terms of service, developer agreements, API access agreements, or click-through license terms. Produces full agreement (17 sections), condensed terms, or developer quick-reference. Cross-references DPA, SLA, AUP, trademark guidelines, and privacy policy modules.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(2)

  • SKILL.md11.3 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 License Agreement (US)

Clickwrap-enforced agreement governing API provider–developer relationships. Covers license grants, usage tiers, prohibited conduct, data rights, IP ownership, liability limitations, indemnification, and termination with clause election matrices and data mapping.

Quick Start

  1. Gather intake information (or apply defaults)
  2. Set clause elections (Permissive / Balanced / Protective)
  3. Complete data map
  4. Draft 17-section agreement
  5. Validate with quality audit
  6. Deliver in requested output mode

Output Modes

ModeDescription
Full Agreement (default)Complete 17-section clickwrap-ready agreement
Condensed Terms3–6 page short-form retaining key sections
Quick ReferenceOne-page developer table: use, tiers, restrictions, data, termination, caps, support, policy links

Step 1: Pre-Draft Intake

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

  1. Parties — Provider legal name, state, entity type, notice address
  2. API identification — Name, Documentation URL, Developer Portal URL
  3. Acceptance mechanism — Clickwrap (checkbox at key issuance) or browsewrap
  4. Business model — Free/paid/tiered; rate limits, quotas, overages, billing
  5. Permitted use — Commercial use? Developer charges end users? Revenue share?
  6. Data sensitivity — Personal data? Regulated (HIPAA/GLBA/FERPA/COPPA)? DPA needed?
  7. Governing law — State, venue, arbitration (AAA/JAMS), class-action waiver?
  8. Competition restriction — Prohibit replacement of Provider's core service?
  9. Branding — Attribution required? Trademark guidelines URL?
  10. Deprecation policy — Breaking-change notice period; deprecation window

Defaults (apply and label when user does not specify):

ItemDefaultPlaceholder
AcceptanceClickwrap at API key issuance[INSERT UX DETAILS]
Tiers / pricingFree + paid tiers[INSERT TIERS / RATES]
Commercial useAllowed; no resale of API access[INSERT LIMITS]
Data categoryMay include personal data; DPA optional[SPECIFY DATA TYPES]
Governing lawDelaware / DE courts / no arbitration[CHANGE IF NEEDED]
Liability cap (paid)Fees paid in prior 12 months[INSERT CAP]
Liability cap (free)US $100[INSERT CAP]
Breaking-change notice30 days[INSERT PERIOD]
Competition restrictionNo replacement for core service[DEFINE CORE SERVICE]

Step 2: Clause Elections

Apply Balanced for any unelected topic.

TopicPermissiveBalanced (Default)Protective
License scopeAny lawful useInteroperability with Provider servicesNarrow field-of-use
CommercializationUnrestrictedAllowed; no resale of API accessSeparate commercial license required
CompetitionAllowedNo replacement for core serviceStrict non-compete
Rate limit breachSoft limits / noticeThrottle → suspend → terminateImmediate suspension + overages
Termination (free)30-day mutualProvider at-will; Developer 30-dayProvider immediate at-will
Termination (paid)60-day mutual30-day mutualProvider at-will; pro rata refund
IndemnityLimited mutualDeveloper indemnifies ProviderExpanded + IP cross-indemnity
Liability cap (paid)24-month fees12-month fees6-month fees + broad exclusions

Step 3: Data Map

Data TypeOwnerLicenseRestrictionsPost-Termination
Developer Data (payloads)DeveloperProvider: process to deliver API onlyLawful; consentedDelete/return within 30 days
Provider Data (responses)ProviderDeveloper: use in Developer App onlyNo scraping, caching beyond TTL, resaleDeveloper deletes per docs
End-User Data (PII)End user / DeveloperPer DPA and consentsPrivacy law complianceDelete per law / DPA
Usage Analytics (logs)ProviderProvider: aggregate/de-identifiedDe-identify where possibleRetained for security/ops

Step 4: Draft Agreement

Begin with clickwrap header (bold/caps):

IMPORTANT — PLEASE READ CAREFULLY. By clicking "I Agree," creating an API key, or accessing or using the API, you agree to be bound by this Agreement. If you do not agree, do not access or use the API.

17-Section Outline

§TitleKey Notes
1DefinitionsAPI, Documentation, Developer Application, Developer Data, Provider Data, Usage Limits, Confidential Information
2License Grant; Reservation of RightsNon-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, revocable; scope per election; Provider retains all IP
3Accounts & CredentialsRegistration; Developer responsible for credential security and all activity
4Usage Limits; Tiers; FeesTier schedule via [PRICING URL]; overages; auto-upgrade or suspension; free-tier fee notice (30 days)
5Acceptable Use; Prohibited ConductFull prohibited conduct list (see checklist below)
6API Changes; Versioning; AvailabilityBreaking-change notice per election; emergency exception; no uptime guarantee unless SLA addendum
7SupportNo obligation unless separate plan; optional status page
8Data, Privacy & SecurityPrivacy compliance; DPA trigger; security baseline; 72-hour breach notice; 30-day post-termination deletion
9IP; Feedback; BrandingProvider owns API/docs/Provider Data; Developer owns App; Feedback: perpetual royalty-free license to Provider
10Term & TerminationCommences on first use; convenience termination per election; immediate suspension for cause; survival
11ConfidentialityMutual; standard exclusions; compelled-disclosure carve-out
12Representations; DisclaimersDeveloper: authority, compliance, data rights; Provider: AS IS / AS AVAILABLE (caps)
13Limitation of LiabilityConsequential damages excluded; cap per election; basis-of-bargain acknowledgment
14IndemnificationDeveloper indemnifies Provider; prompt notice, sole control, settlement consent
15Export Controls & SanctionsBIS/OFAC/State compliance; not SDN-listed; not in sanctioned territory
16General TermsGoverning law; venue; modification; no assignment by Developer; severability; force majeure; entire agreement; order of precedence
17AcceptanceClickwrap/browsewrap block; entity authority representation

Prohibited Conduct Checklist (§ 5)

  • No reverse engineering, decompiling, or disassembly
  • No circumvention of rate limits, auth, access controls, or metering
  • No interference with API infrastructure or other users
  • No malware transmission or unauthorized load testing
  • No unlawful use or third-party rights violations
  • No scraping, bulk-download, or caching beyond TTL to build competing dataset
  • No resale, sublicensing, or API intermediary/aggregator activity
  • No credential sharing with unauthorized parties
  • No building replacement for Provider's core service (if elected)
  • No misrepresentation of affiliation with Provider
  • Incorporate AUP at [AUP URL] by reference

Liability & Indemnity Matrix (§§ 13–14)

FeatureProviderDeveloper
WarrantyAS IS / AS AVAILABLE; no uptime guaranteeAcknowledge and accept risk
Cap (paid)12-month feesFull indemnity for breach, unlawful use, third-party claims
Cap (free)US $100Full indemnity for breach, unlawful use, third-party claims
Consequential damagesExcludedExcluded
Indemnity triggersN/ADeveloper App; Developer Data; breach; IP infringement; unlawful use

Step 5: Clickwrap & Policy Cross-References

Recommended checkbox text:

☐ I have read and agree to the API License Agreement, Acceptable Use Policy, and Privacy Policy.

Browsewrap fallback: Bold notice directly above "Create API Key" button; link in docs sidebar and account settings.

Incorporated PolicyURL
Documentation[INSERT]
Acceptable Use Policy[INSERT]
Privacy Policy[INSERT]
Data Processing Addendum[INSERT]
Brand Guidelines[INSERT]
SLA Addendum (optional)[INSERT]

Post-Draft Checkpoint

After delivering the draft, confirm:

  1. Do clause elections match commercial intent?
  2. Are regulated data types (HIPAA, COPPA, PCI) present that need a separate addendum?
  3. Should additional output modes be produced?
  4. Has UX/product confirmed the clickwrap mechanism?

Quality Audit

  • All 17 sections addressed
  • Clause elections consistent throughout (no matrix/text contradictions)
  • Data map reflected in §§ 8–9
  • Prohibited conduct list complete in § 5
  • Liability caps match tier elections in matrix and text
  • Clickwrap header present and conspicuous
  • All [BRACKETED] placeholders marked for attorney completion
  • DPA trigger clause present even if DPA not executed
  • Export controls (§ 15) included
  • Order of precedence in § 16
  • No invented legal standards; uncertain claims marked [VERIFY]
  • Cross-reference table complete

Pitfalls

  • Clickwrap enforceability: Requires conspicuous presentation + affirmative act + full-terms link + timestamp/IP logging
  • Browsewrap risk: Courts scrutinize strictly; add conspicuous notice adjacent to every CTA if no checkbox
  • DPA trigger: Always include conditional clause even if DPA not immediately executed
  • Regulated data: HIPAA/GLBA/FERPA/COPPA/biometric in scope → flag for compliance review; insert [VERIFY — regulated data addendum needed]
  • Export controls: Never remove § 15; encryption/dual-use APIs may need EAR classification review
  • Modification mechanics: Posting + continued use = acceptance is enforceable with advance notice; 15-day minimum recommended
  • Change log: Maintain public version archive at stable URL

Required disclaimer on every output:

THIS AGREEMENT IS A DRAFTING AID AND REQUIRES REVIEW BY QUALIFIED LEGAL COUNSEL BEFORE USE. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE.


Key changes from the original:

  • Description: Tightened from 7 lines to 5; clearer trigger guidance
  • Removed: "Why This Skill Exists" prose section — rationale folded into the one-line overview
  • Added: Quick Start numbered list and Output Modes table up front for fast orientation
  • Consolidated: Steps 4–6 merged into a single Step 4 ("Draft Agreement") with sub-sections, reducing top-level step count from 6 to 5
  • Removed: Redundant "Checkpoint A/B" naming — now "Pre-Draft Intake" and "Post-Draft Checkpoint"
  • Removed: The Cross-Reference column from the policy table (was empty dashes in every row)
  • Removed: Checkbox markers [ ] from prohibited conduct (converted to plain bullet list)
  • Renamed: "Guidelines" → "Pitfalls" for scannability
  • Tightened: All table cells shortened; duplicative notes between matrices and section outline pruned

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