Use for due diligence, legal-financial risk review, investment or business transaction checklists, and preliminary screening where facts, documents, assumptions, legal uncertainty, debt/equity, assets/liabilities, contracts, tax, regulatory, compliance, technology/product, and financial-model issues must be separated clearly.
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。
Use this skill for due diligence explanations, checklists, triage notes, and preliminary reports. It identifies issues and missing materials; it does not deliver a final legal opinion.
This file is self-contained for loaders that read only SKILL.md. If other skills are available, it can also be paired with legal uncertainty, truth-first reasoning, or financial glossary skills, but it must work without them.
Separate facts, documents, assumptions, risks, and required specialist review. Do not convert missing evidence into confident conclusions.
fact, documented evidence, management statement, assumption, inference, and legal/financial conclusion.Missing or ESCALATE; do not fill the gap with generic caution.Safe public outputs may include:
Do not include:
Before relying on an answer, identify:
Check these buckets and mark each as OK, Issue, Missing, or ESCALATE:
Use these public-safe distinctions when a deal, investment, calculator, or business model is involved:
Cash flow is timing of cash in/out; profit is accounting result after expenses. Positive profit does not guarantee liquidity.EBITDA is operating performance before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization; it is not free cash flow or approved dividends.CapEx buys long-term assets; OpEx supports current operations.Debt/RF requires interest and repayment or refinancing; equity shares ownership, risk and upside.Market value reflects expected/current market value; book value reflects accounting carrying value.Assets may generate value; liabilities require settlement.ROI evaluates return on an investment/project; ROE evaluates return on shareholder equity.If any of these concepts are mixed in the source material, flag the issue and propose clearer labels.
Use this compact structure:
State: PASS | ESCALATE | BLOCK
Purpose:
Materials reviewed:
Key assumptions:
Confirmed points:
Open issues:
Missing documents:
Risks by bucket:
Required next step:
Safe for external reliance: yes/no
PASS: documents and assumptions are sufficient for the limited stated purpose.ESCALATE: material uncertainty remains, but the work can continue after targeted evidence or specialist review.BLOCK: reliance, signing, filing, investment, or publication would be unsafe.Use cautious but concrete language:
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。