Writes the formal letter you send before suing someone in a civil case in England & Wales — the Letter Before Claim that starts the pre-action clock. The part it gets right is which pre-action protocol applies — debt, professional negligence, housing disrepair, personal injury, or the default Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct — each of which has its own rules a generic letter misses (the 30-day debt window, the professional-negligence preliminary-notice step). It also flags the limitation deadline for a solicitor to confirm rather than stating it as fact. Built for litigation juniors, in-house counsel, and small firms without a precedent to copy. Use when the user says 'draft an LBC', 'letter before claim', 'pre-action letter', 'pre-action protocol', or needs to start the pre-action clock before issuing a civil claim. Verify the current protocol before sending.
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。
The pre-action regime narrows issues, encourages settlement, and exposes parties who don't engage to costs sanctions. Non-compliance with PACC or a specific protocol can result in:
| Claim type | Protocol |
|---|---|
| Debt claim where debtor is an individual (incl. sole trader) | Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (Oct 2017) |
| Professional negligence (solicitors, accountants, surveyors, etc.) | Pre-Action Protocol for Professional Negligence |
| Personal injury (≤ £25k portal; > £25k or non-portal) | Pre-Action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims |
| Housing disrepair | Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Disrepair Claims |
| Construction & Engineering | Pre-Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes |
| Judicial review | Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review |
| Defamation | Pre-Action Protocol for Defamation |
| Possession claims | Pre-Action Protocol for Possession Claims by Social Landlords (where applicable) |
| Anything else | Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (PACC) — default |
These are general defaults only — the periods below are starting points, not a settled limitation opinion. The accrual date and any exceptions must be checked by a solicitor for the specific facts.
Do not state a computed latest-issue date as fact. Exceptions and adjustments that move the date — s.32 deliberate concealment/fraud/mistake, s.14A date of knowledge, contractual variation of the limitation period, contribution claims (s.10), disability, acknowledgment/part payment (s.29) — must be checked by a solicitor before anyone relies on the date.
The LBC does not stop limitation. If limitation is near, issue protectively and consider a stay for pre-action compliance.
Surface the computed date as something to confirm, never assert: [SOLICITOR: confirm limitation date — primary limit appears to expire [date]; check accrual + exceptions; consider protective issue].
From the claim type. If unclear, default to PACC.
Surface the apparent latest issue date as a [SOLICITOR: confirm limitation date] marker — never as a settled fact. Flag the accrual assumption and any exception that could move it.
Use the relevant template.
Identify documents to enclose. Limited disclosure at LBC stage; full disclosure later.
PACC and most protocols require parties to consider ADR. Stating willingness in the LBC is standard. Refusal to engage in ADR can be costs-penalised (Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 576); the position was recalibrated in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416, where the Court of Appeal held a court may lawfully stay proceedings to require parties to engage in ADR. Confirm the current ADR-costs position before relying on it.
Render the sections below as the finished letter — do not echo this template back, and do not leave bracketed placeholders unfilled. If a value is unknown, insert a clearly-marked [SOLICITOR: confirm X] rather than guessing. Any case-law or rule reference the model cannot pin to a section or citation should be marked [CITE NEEDED — authority] rather than stated as settled.
[Solicitor letterhead]
[Date]
[Defendant name] [Address]
BY EMAIL AND POST
Dear Sirs,
Re: [Claimant name] — Letter Before Claim
We act for [Claimant]. We are writing in accordance with the Practice Direction — Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols [or the relevant protocol].
Limitation notice: The primary limitation period for the claim described below appears to expire on [SOLICITOR: confirm limitation date].
[Claimant — full legal name, address. Defendant — full legal name, registered office (for companies).]
[Numbered chronology of material facts.]
[For each cause of action — contract, tort, statutory — state the basis and apply the facts to the elements.]
[Particularised loss with computation.]
Total: £[Z]
Enclosed:
Please provide:
Our client is willing to consider ADR (including mediation). Please indicate within your response whether your client is willing to engage and, if so, your preferred form and timing.
Please provide a Letter of Response within [21 days / per protocol]. The response should:
If proceedings are issued and our client succeeds, costs will be sought under CPR Part 44. Our client reserves the right to make a CPR Part 36 offer, or a without-prejudice-save-as-to-costs (Calderbank v Calderbank [1976] Fam 93) offer, at any stage.
Yours faithfully,
[Signature]
[SOLICITOR: confirm limitation date] — the computed latest-issue date; always confirm, never assert.[PROTOCOL — [name] applies; consider preliminary notice / 30-day debt window / 3-month prof-neg response][SME VERIFY — protocol amendments] — protocol wording or timing the model is unsure is current.[CITE NEEDED — authority] — a case or rule referenced without a verified citation; check before relying on it.This is a draft for solicitor review, not legal advice. Verify every citation and the limitation position with counsel before the letter is sent. A solicitor with conduct of the matter — not this prompt — is responsible for compliance and for what goes out under the firm's name.
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。