Audit Terms of Service, user agreements, and privacy policies for consumer risks, producing a structured report that flags unfair clauses, data traps, and liability issues. Trigger when a user asks to review, audit, or analyze a ToS, privacy policy, or user agreement, or mentions specific concerns like auto-renewal or data authorization.
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。
Systematically audit the Terms of Service, User Agreements, and Privacy Policies of apps, SaaS products, and platforms from an ordinary consumer's standpoint. Identify clauses that may harm consumer rights and produce an actionable audit report.
Paste the terms text directly to the Agent or provide a file path. The Agent will automatically complete the audit and output a structured report.
Example prompts:
The audit covers seven major risk categories, each with common problem patterns:
| ID | Risk Category | Severity | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | Unfair Clauses | 🔴 High | Clauses that exclude or restrict consumers' statutory rights |
| R2 | Covert Data Authorization | 🔴 High | Data collection, sharing, or sale beyond what the service requires |
| R3 | Auto-Renewal Traps | 🟠 Medium-High | Opaque auto-renewal mechanisms and cancellation barriers |
| R4 | Unilateral Amendment Rights | 🟠 Medium-High | Platform reserves the right to modify terms without notice |
| R5 | Excessive Liability Disclaimers | 🟠 Medium-High | Overbroad disclaimers and low liability caps |
| R6 | Dispute Resolution Restrictions | 🟡 Medium | Mandatory arbitration, class-action waivers, jurisdiction constraints |
| R7 | IP Overreach | 🟡 Medium | Excessive rights claimed over user-generated content |
Look for these patterns:
Review checklist:
Look for these patterns:
Review checklist:
Look for these patterns:
Review checklist:
Look for these patterns:
Review checklist:
Look for these patterns:
Review checklist:
Look for these patterns:
Review checklist:
Look for these patterns:
Review checklist:
After receiving the terms text submitted by the user, follow these steps:
For each identified risky clause, evaluate three dimensions:
| Dimension | Description |
|---|---|
| Severity | Potential harm to consumer rights (High / Medium / Low) |
| Concealment | Whether the clause disguises its true intent through wording or placement (High / Medium / Low) |
| Actionability | Whether the consumer has practical means to mitigate the risk (Yes / Limited / None) |
# Terms of Service Audit Report
## Basic Information
- **Subject**: [Platform / App name]
- **Document Type**: [Terms of Service / Privacy Policy / Combined Agreement]
- **Audit Date**: [Date]
## Overall Rating
[⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ to ⭐ — five-tier scale]
| Metric | Rating |
|--------|--------|
| Overall Consumer-Friendliness | ⭐⭐⭐ |
| Data Privacy Protection | ⭐⭐ |
| Fee Transparency | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
| Clause Fairness | ⭐⭐ |
## Risk Findings
### 🔴 High-Risk (Requires Immediate Attention)
#### Finding 1: [Risk Title]
- **Risk Category**: R1 Unfair Clauses / R2 Covert Data Authorization / ...
- **Original Text**: > [Direct quote from the terms]
- **Risk Analysis**: [Plain-language explanation of why this clause is harmful to consumers]
- **Severity**: High | **Concealment**: High | **Actionability**: None
- **Recommendation**: [Actions the consumer can take]
### 🟠 Medium-High Risk
...(same structure as above)
### 🟡 Medium Risk
...(same structure as above)
## Consumer Action Items
1. [Specific action recommendations, ordered by priority]
2. ...
## Comparison with Industry Peers (if applicable)
[Brief note on whether the clause is standard industry practice]
When analyzing each risk, follow these principles so that ordinary consumers can understand:
The audit references the following regulations (this does not constitute legal advice):
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。