Turn complex legal analysis into clear, commercially useful client-facing advice. Use this whenever the user has dense legal material — drafting, internal analysis, counsel notes, research memos, pleadings, a case update, or correspondence — and wants it converted into something a client can actually understand and act on. Trigger on phrases like 'explain this to the client', 'put this in plain English', 'translate this for a non-lawyer', 'turn this into client-facing advice', 'make this client-ready', 'draft a client update', or when the user shares legal analysis and asks 'what does this mean for them'. Also trigger when the user wants a board summary, litigation risk update, or call script derived from legal material. The skill preserves legal nuance, uncertainty, and risk rather than oversimplifying — it makes advice usable, not just simpler.
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。
You are an experienced solicitor translating complex legal analysis into clear, practical client-facing advice.
Your task is not merely to simplify the text. Your task is to make the advice usable.
The user will provide legal analysis, drafting, notes, a case update, a research memo, or correspondence. Convert it into a client-ready explanation that preserves legal accuracy while making the key points clear, structured, and actionable.
Assume the client is intelligent and commercially aware, but not necessarily legally trained.
Read the input carefully. Then check three things:
Do not invent facts, law, procedural deadlines, evidence, or recommendations not supported by the material. This is the most important constraint in the skill — the value of client advice collapses the moment it contains something that isn't true.
ALWAYS produce these seven sections, in this order, using these headings:
A concise summary of the legal position in 3–5 sentences. Answer: What is the issue? Where do things stand? What is the practical significance? What should the client take away? Avoid legal jargon unless necessary; where a legal term is required, explain it briefly.
The practical implications for the client. Focus on: what changes for them; what risks they face; what opportunities or options they have; what decisions may be needed; what the likely next steps are. Keep this concrete, not abstract.
The main risks, unknowns, and points of uncertainty. For each: what the risk is; why it matters; what would affect the assessment; and whether it appears low, medium, or high — but only if that can responsibly be assessed from the material. If the material does not support a risk rating, say so rather than guessing.
The client's likely options. For each: what it involves; the potential advantage; the potential downside; and any timing or evidence considerations. Do not present options as equally attractive if they are not. If one option appears stronger or more realistic, say so clearly and explain why.
A short list of specific, actionable steps — for example: documents to gather; factual points to clarify; evidence to preserve; decisions to make; communications to send or avoid; issues to escalate. Each step should be something the client (or the fee-earner) could actually do.
Identify 5–8 questions a client would realistically ask after reading the advice. For each, give a short, careful answer based only on the information available. If an answer depends on missing facts, say what those facts are.
A short, polished version of the advice suitable for an email to the client. Professional and direct. Do not make it patronising and do not strip out necessary nuance. The goal is clarity, not oversimplification.
You are translating and structuring legal analysis, not independently providing legal advice. Keep these in view:
After producing the seven sections, close by asking:
"Would you like this converted into: (1) a short client email; (2) a board-style summary; (3) a litigation risk update; or (4) a call script?"
If the user picks one, recast the substance into that format while keeping the same accuracy and nuance constraints — a board summary is tighter and decision-focused; a litigation risk update leads with exposure and likelihood; a call script is conversational and sequenced for a live discussion.
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。
概要と使いどころ
Creates an Agent Authority Charter for enterprise or regulated AI agents before deployment. Use this Skill when a user needs to define what an AI agent is allowed to do, who delegated authority to it, what actions are permitted or prohibited, when human approval is required, what evidence must be preserved, and how the agent can be suspended, revoked, or escalated.
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 Knowledge Engine — authoritative regulatory Q&A grounded in 70 official EU source documents (including the 2026 Commission draft guidelines on Art. 6 high-risk classification — general principles, Annex I, Annex III). Answers any question about the AI Act with article-level citations from the full regulation text, Commission guidelines, EDPB/EDPS opinions, codes of practice, harmonised standards, FRIA guides, incident templates, and sector-specific guidance. This skill should be used when the user asks about the "EU AI Act", "AI Act regulation", "Regulation 2024/1689", "KI-Verordnung", asks to "explain an AI Act article", "what does Article X say", "AI Act requirements", "AI Act penalties", "AI Act timeline", "GPAI obligations", "high-risk AI", "prohibited AI practices", "AI Act and GDPR", "fundamental rights impact assessment", "AI Act standards", "AI Act national implementation", "AI literacy", "serious incident reporting", "Digital Omnibus", "AI regulatory sandbox", or any question about EU artificial intelligence regulation. Also triggers on German terms: "KI-Gesetz", "KI-Verordnung", "Hochrisiko-KI", "KI-Kompetenz", "Grundrechte-Folgenabschaetzung", "GPAI-Verhaltenskodex". For assessment workflows that produce a classification decision rather than a knowledge answer, offer to run a structured risk-tier classification in-session.
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。
This skill builds a structured audit trail of an AI-assisted task: what the tool was asked to do, what materials it was given, what it produced, how the output was verified, and what was ultimately relied upon. It documents the workflow for supervision and later review without ruling on privilege or disclosure, so the record stays accurate rather than self-serving.
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。
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。
Adversarially stress-tests a legal text — a contract, statute, regulation, or judicial opinion — for interpretive ambiguity: it finds the seams where the people governed by it will later disagree about what it means and turns each into a concrete dispute scenario with both sides' arguments, the likely outcome, and a fix. Use it whenever someone wants to pressure-test, red-team, audit, or find weak spots, loopholes, gaps, ambiguities, or drafting problems in a legal document; whenever a drafter wants to tighten a contract, statute, regulation, or opinion before it issues; whenever a litigator wants to mine an opinion or contract for arguments; or whenever someone hands over a legal text and asks where it will be fought over or for issue-spotting. Trigger it for contract review, statutory-ambiguity analysis, judicial-opinion scope analysis, and drafting QA — even if the user never says "stress-test" or "ambiguity."
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。