Performs a legal compliance audit for a Moroccan e-commerce website, focused on personal data protection (Law 09-08) and consumer contract disclosures/obligations (Law 31-08). Use this skill when a user asks to audit, check, or assess the legal compliance of an e-commerce website operating in Morocco — presence and validity of Terms & Conditions, privacy policy, CNDP declaration, mandatory disclosures, right of withdrawal, consent banner. Out of scope: compliance for other countries, Meta/Google advertising compliance (covered by another skill), definitive legal advice (results are a starting point for professional review, not legal advice).
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 when a user asks to audit, check, or assess the legal compliance of a Moroccan e-commerce website, specifically regarding:
Out of scope: Meta/Google advertising compliance (covered by a separate skill), law of other countries, definitive legal advice, marketplaces/multi-vendor platforms (not yet covered by this methodology), informal commerce without a website (selling only through a Facebook/Instagram page + WhatsApp, without formalized Terms & Conditions or privacy policy — not covered here, as this methodology assumes the existence of a website). The results of this audit are a structured starting point, to be validated by a professional before any contentious action.
The audit always follows the same order, from the most visible/quick-to-check items to the more
specific ones. For each site audited, duplicate assets/grille-audit-site-web.xlsx and fill in
the Status column (Compliant / Non-compliant / To correct / To verify) as you go.
The information needed for the audit is not all in one place — do not limit the check to the footer. Browse the entire site: homepage, footer, menu/sidebar, and a selection of product pages, to gather the elements required by each item in the grid. If an element remains unclear or cannot be found after this review (e.g. CNDP number never displayed, ambiguous return procedure), flag it as "To verify with the client" rather than guessing or defaulting to non-compliant.
Some elements are non-negotiable (e.g. right of withdrawal, seller identity, consent for data collection): their absence should always be treated as High priority, regardless of context. Others tolerate some flexibility depending on the client's context (e.g. intellectual property terms of use, Low priority) — the priority already indicated in the grid reflects this distinction.
First check whether the site has a Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions (often in the footer). Their mere presence is not enough: verify that they are genuinely tailored to the site (not an irrelevant generic copy-paste) and that they cover, point by point:
Privacy Policy (Law 09-08) — check each of these points separately:
Terms & Conditions (Law 31-08) — check each of these points separately, not as a single block:
Once the foundational documents have been checked, verify the consistency of the information shown on product pages themselves: price, delivery times, availability — this information should match what the Terms & Conditions state.
Check separately:
Check whether the type of product sold requires a specific authorization — only relevant if the client sells in a concerned sector:
Check for the presence of a CNDP declaration receipt number (mandatory as soon as personal data is collected). Medium-term priority (official process), useful for long-term recommendations, even though it does not block day-to-day sales.
Check for a functional consent banner before advertising trackers are activated (Meta Pixel, Google Analytics) — in accordance with Art. 4 of Law 09-08.
Check separately:
Check that the legal withdrawal period (7 clear days from receipt, extended to 30 days if the mandatory information was not confirmed in writing) is clearly stated, along with its procedure and exceptions (personalized products, perishable goods, unsealed software, services already started).
The level of expectation depends on the size of the site:
If an element cannot be confirmed from outside the site (e.g. actual existence of a CNDP declaration, exact content of a supplier contract), flag it as "To verify with the client" rather than defaulting it to Compliant or Non-compliant.
assets/grille-audit-site-web.xlsx duplicated and filled in) — status per
item, with the legal reference already indicated in the grid.assets/CGV_Template_Maroc_V3.docx and assets/Politique_Confidentialite_Maroc_V2.docx as a
starting point — adapt the bracketed placeholders ([Company name], [RC number], etc.) to
the audited client rather than copying them as-is.assets/grille-audit-site-web.xlsx — 14-item Website audit grid, with legal reference and
priority level for each item.assets/CGV_Template_Maroc_V3.docx — Terms & Conditions template compliant with Law 31-08,
with fields to customize (in brackets).assets/Politique_Confidentialite_Maroc_V2.docx — Privacy Policy template compliant with Law
09-08, with a reminder of the prior CNDP declaration obligation.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。