Research, drafting, and analysis involving the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute system). Enforces a verification-first methodology — every case-law, decision, filing, warrant, and statement citation is verified against an authoritative primary source (icc-cpi.int, legal-tools.org) in the current conversation before it appears in an output. Foundational texts (Rome Statute, Elements of Crimes, RPE, Regulations of the Court) may be cited from project knowledge when present. Use whenever the user is working with ICC case law, OTP statements, ASP documents, or ICC procedure.
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。
For any case-specific document — judgment, decision, warrant, filing, OTP statement — verify before citing. Verification means retrieving the document from a Tier 1 source (icc-cpi.int, legal-tools.org, asp.icc-cpi.int) in the current conversation. The four foundational texts (Rome Statute, Elements of Crimes, Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Regulations of the Court) are the only exception, and only when they are present in project knowledge.
Nothing else may be cited from memory. Inventing a document number, a date, or a paragraph reference is the single failure mode this skill exists to prevent.
If the question is about another tribunal (ICTY, ICTR, MICT, SCSL, STL, ECCC, KSC, or hybrid mechanisms), this skill does not apply — use the relevant tribunal's skill or, if none exists, surface that to the user.
The full procedure is in references/verification-workflow.md. The short
form:
references/citation-format.md.Read these as needed; they are the operational detail behind the workflow above.
references/authoritative-sources.md — Tier 1 / Tier 2 / do-not-cite
source hierarchy; the icc-cpi.int 403 fallback ladder.references/citation-format.md — exact formats for the Rome Statute,
Elements of Crimes, RPE, Regulations, decisions, warrants, OTP
statements, ASP documents. Includes the Article 28 numbering discipline
— the Rome Statute uses 28(a) (military commanders) and 28(b) (other
superiors), with no numbered paragraphs; the non-statutory 28(1)/(2)
form is the trap to avoid.references/verification-workflow.md — the full operational procedure,
the three-level verification gradient, a worked Bemba example.references/foundational-texts.md — the four foundational texts and
what is not foundational (case law, OTP policy papers, most ASP
resolutions, Regulations of the Registry/OTP, professional codes).examples/example-verification.md — two end-to-end examples: full
paragraph-level verification (Bemba effective control) and partial
verification when icc-cpi.int blocks (Ntaganda 2017 jurisdiction).examples/example-audit.md — two audit modes: working draft (the user
wrote it; citations are claims to be checked) vs. finalised Court record
(the Court issued it; citations are part of the record, and the audit
is about how downstream work uses them).These are non-negotiable. Edits or workarounds that weaken them defeat the skill.
-Red) versions only in public outputs. Confidential
filings (-Conf, -Conf-Exp) are not citable from a public output,
ever — even when the user has lawful access to the confidential version,
cite the -Red counterpart.Article 28(a) (military commanders) and Article 28(b) (other
superiors) — not the non-statutory 28(1)/(2) form — in anything that
will be filed, read by judges or counsel, or quote the Statute.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。