Swiss legal source and authority triage. Use when a user asks a Swiss legal, regulatory, compliance, contract, employment, corporate, litigation, IP, tax, privacy, public-law, fintech, register, or cantonal-law question; when Swiss law may apply; or when an AI legal answer needs source routing across federal, cantonal, communal, regulator, register, contractual, professional, soft-law, multilingual, or open-data layers.
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 to map the Swiss legal authority structure before producing a legal answer.
This skill does not provide Swiss legal advice. It helps an AI assistant identify the correct source layer, authority hierarchy, language/version checks, uncertainty flags, and human-review boundaries for Swiss legal research and legal-operations workflows.
Core thesis: for Swiss legal AI, route authority before generating an answer.
Use this skill whenever:
Do not present the output as legal advice. Use language such as:
This is a Swiss legal source and authority triage, not legal advice. It identifies likely source layers and review points. A qualified Swiss lawyer should review any concrete legal position, filing, advice to a client, or operational decision.
Escalate clearly when the issue involves:
Classify the user's request as one or more of:
If the relevant canton, commune, regulator, sector, contract type, or factual setting is missing, proceed with explicit assumptions and flag the gap. Ask a clarifying question only when the missing fact makes source routing impossible.
Identify every layer that may control the answer:
| Layer | What to check |
|---|---|
| Federal law | Federal Constitution, federal acts, ordinances, treaties, federal official publications |
| Cantonal law | Cantonal constitution, acts, ordinances, court organisation, administrative practice |
| Communal/local law | Municipal rules, permits, zoning, police regulations, local public-law instruments |
| Official case law | Federal Supreme Court, Federal Administrative Court, Federal Criminal Court, Federal Patent Court, cantonal courts |
| Regulator practice | FINMA, FDPIC/EDÖB, COMCO/WEKO, SECO, Swissmedic, FTA/ESTV, BAKOM/OFCOM, fedpol/MROS, sector bodies |
| Registers/legal state | Zefix, cantonal commercial registers, SHAB/SOGC, Swissreg, land register where accessible, debt enforcement/bankruptcy publications |
| Contractual source | Governing law, jurisdiction/arbitration clause, order of precedence, policies, schedules, standards incorporated by reference |
| Professional/self-regulation | Bar/professional rules, SRO rules, industry codes, exchange rules, association standards |
| Doctrine/expert authority | Commentaries, treatises, textbooks, expert opinions, academic articles. Use only after official sources and regulator practice. Check edition, language and doctrinal posture. |
| Soft law / secondary | Guidance, commentary, law-firm notes, academic writing, open-access journals, research guides |
Use this hierarchy when deciding what source to rely on:
resources/doctrine-and-expert-authority-map.md.Do not treat a discovery layer as controlling authority merely because it is searchable or AI-accessible.
For each material source, record:
Flag multilingual divergence risk where wording could affect interpretation.
Always consider these flags:
Use the following output structure unless the user asks for a different format.
# Swiss Legal Source Map
## 1. Issue classification
[Classify the issue and state key assumptions.]
## 2. Likely authority layers
| Layer | Relevance | Source path to check | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal law | ... | ... | Official / primary |
| Cantonal law | ... | ... | Requires canton |
| Regulator | ... | ... | Guidance / circular / enforcement / binding rule |
## 3. Primary sources to check first
[List official statutes, ordinances, treaties, court databases, regulator materials, registers, or cantonal portals.]
## 4. Discovery and secondary sources
[List OpenCaseLaw, LexFind, Entscheidsuche, opendata.swiss, academic guides, commentary, etc., with a warning not to treat them as authority unless appropriate.]
## 5. Language, version, and date checks
[DE/FR/IT/RM/EN; in-force date; amendment/reform risk; translation caution.]
## 6. Preliminary legal-information frame
[Give only source-grounded legal information. Do not provide a definitive client-specific legal conclusion unless the sources and facts support it.]
## 7. Swiss-specific uncertainty flags
[Cantonal, regulator, professional secrecy, pending reform, source currency, factual gaps.]
## 8. Human review boundary
[Information only / lawyer review recommended / lawyer review required / authority confirmation required / regulator-specific advice required.]
## 9. Review receipt
- Sources checked:
- Sources not checked:
- Assumptions:
- Remaining gaps:
- Date of triage:
When the user needs a brief response, provide:
**Swiss source route:** [federal/cantonal/regulator/register/contractual/mixed]
**Official sources first:** [sources]
**Discovery aids:** [sources]
**Key Swiss flags:** [cantonal/language/regulator/reform/facts]
**Review boundary:** [what needs Swiss lawyer or authority review]
Do not:
Use the reference files in resources/:
swiss-legal-source-map.md — curated Swiss source list by source type.source-hierarchy.md — authority hierarchy and source-status taxonomy.doctrine-and-expert-authority-map.md — doctrine and expert-authority guidance.output-template.md — reusable Swiss source-map template.examples.md — sample outputs for common Swiss legal questions.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。