Converts a proven, repeated professional workflow into a portable and inspectable AI Skill with clear triggers, inputs, steps, outputs, verification, recovery, and limits. Use when a user asks to make a workflow reusable, package a process as a Skill, or preserve a successful multi-step method. Do not use for speculative processes that have not been performed or concretely specified.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Transforme un modèle juridique (.docx ou .odt : contrat, conclusions, assignation, courrier type, procès-verbal…) en formulaire HTML autonome, exécuté hors ligne, qui produit sans IA le document complété, fidèle au modèle, dans son format d'origine : parties optionnelles et alternatives, listes répétées, accords, montants et dates en lettres, calculs, numérotation et renvois. Déclencher dès que l'utilisateur veut « transformer ce modèle en formulaire », « automatiser un modèle », un « modèle à remplir » ou un « générateur d'actes », réutiliser régulièrement un contrat ou une trame, ou demande « fais-moi un modèle de … à remplir » ; aussi pour faire évoluer un formulaire tabellion existant. Pas pour compléter une seule fois un document. Compétence créée par Christophe Quézel-Ambrunaz, Université Savoie Mont Blanc (V.1.1).
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Reviews public or shared AI-backed web endpoints for abuse, excessive cost, data exposure, unsafe browser control, weak request limits, and missing human approval. Use before launching or materially changing an HTTP or API endpoint that can invoke an AI model. Do not use as a penetration test, compliance certification, or substitute for runtime monitoring and professional security review.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Analyze a U.S. Supreme Court oral argument transcript for a lawyer who has not read it: each advocate's position, authorities discussed, the bench's concerns, tentative judicial leanings, possible dispositions, and advocacy strengths and weaknesses, with transcript pinpoints. Use for oral argument analysis, a SCOTUS argument report, or an assessment of how the justices approached a case. Requires readable transcript content; research, Python tallying, and document creation are optional, with disclosed fallbacks.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use when an application or system — including one built quickly with AI coding agents — needs a security review with regulatory grounding: a STRIDE threat model, a LINDDUN privacy threat model, a dependency exposure screen against live CVE / CISA-KEV / EPSS data, or a selected, non-exhaustive screen of which EU security obligations (GDPR, NIS2, Cyber Resilience Act, AI Act) may apply and which need determination. Orchestrates the server-enforced threat-modeling workflows of the Ansvar Gateway MCP connector and grounds every regulatory statement in officially published text fetched at answer time — scope, role, and application-date limits stated, never a compliance verdict. Never simulates a workflow and never answers legal questions from model memory.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Conseiller expert en conformité PCI DSS v4.0.1 (seule version active depuis le 31 décembre 2024). Utiliser pour toute question sur PCI DSS, la sécurité des paiements par carte, les données de titulaires, le périmètre du CDE, les types de SAQ (A, A-EP, B, B-IP, C, C-VT, P2PE, D), le ROC, l'AOC, les évaluations QSA, les scans ASV, les niveaux de marchands et de prestataires, la segmentation réseau, les tests d'intrusion, la tokenisation, le chiffrement du PAN, ou l'une des 12 exigences. Couvre la révision SAQ A de janvier 2025 (critère d'éligibilité r1, FAQ 1588), les exigences v4.0 obligatoires depuis le 31 mars 2025, et l'articulation avec DSP2, RGPD, NIS2 et DORA via les connecteurs MCP LibreJustice et EUR-Lex. Déclencheurs : « sommes-nous conformes PCI ? », « quel SAQ s'applique ? », « qu'est-ce qui a changé en v4.0 ? », « comment préparer un audit QSA ? ».
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Organize document evidence into auditable competing hypotheses, source-linked observations, an assessment matrix and document-linked discriminating tests. Use for bounded explanatory questions, documents that could resolve uncertainty, rejection history, source provenance, gaps and updates, including a withdrawn or corrected fact and which explanations and earlier judgments it puts back under review; not findings of guilt or predictions about people. Evaluation preview requiring human review.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use when a security incident, data breach, or actively exploited vulnerability raises the question "who must we notify, where, and by when?" Screens one incident across the EU reporting regimes — NIS2, GDPR, DORA, and the Cyber Resilience Act — determines which duties fire for each involved entity's roles, resolves the receiving authority per regime and member state from served national law, and produces a deadline table in which every duty, authority, and deadline is cited from official publisher text fetched live through the Ansvar Gateway MCP connector. Never answers from model memory.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Reviews whether an AI-assisted Word or DOCX workflow preserves the original, tracked changes, comments, numbering, sections, edit identity, document structure, save/verify cycles, and professional review. Use before relying on a DOCX that an AI tool read, edited, redlined, reformatted, or generated. Do not use as a legal review of the document's substance or as proof that every rendering defect was detected.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Expertise complète pour produire une fiche d'arrêt ou un commentaire de décision en droit administratif français (méthode Faouzi El Ouertani, 7 rubriques + plan binaire critique). Vérification systématique des décisions et textes cités via le MCP LibreJustice (https://librejustice.fr/mcp/) et les connecteurs Légifrance. Déclenché par « fiche d'arrêt », « commentaire d'arrêt », « commentaire de décision », « analyse de décision » en droit administratif.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Screens AI Skills, MCP servers, plugins, and agent tools before installation or activation using provenance, static inspection, least privilege, version pinning, and PASS/REVIEW/BLOCK decisions. Use when a user asks whether an agent capability is safe, wants to install a Skill or MCP, reviews a marketplace or GitHub artifact, or reassesses a changed capability. Do not use as an antivirus guarantee, a runtime sandbox, or a substitute for professional incident response.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Public-safe preliminary screen for challenges to the impartiality of an AI evaluator, LLM-as-a-judge, decision-support agent, or adjudicative system based on prior outputs, suspected bias, unstable reasoning, or self-reinforcing memory. Use when asked whether an AI should be recused, disqualified, replaced, audited, or escalated. Does not decide real cases or claim that human judicial-recusal doctrine automatically applies.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Citable builds an interactive cite-checking table for US court filings (briefs, memoranda, petitions, declarations, etc.). Every citation links to its pinpoint location in the record exhibit, the case (CourtListener), the statute (Cornell LII) or the treaty (flagged where one cannot be located), with a status and a note field per citation for the reviewer to fill. When the filing is revised, citable rebuilds the table, flags citation-related changes and carries the saved review forward. Use when the user asks to cite-check, build a citation table, link a brief's citations, or update a table for a revised draft.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Orchestrateur multi-rôles en droit du travail français (salarié, employeur, audit, conseil, veille, formation). Charger pour toute consultation prud'homale, rédaction d'actes (non-concurrence, transaction, avertissement), audit de contrat ou d'accord d'entreprise, calcul d'indemnités, conformité CCN, CSE, CDD, harcèlement, temps de travail, veille chambre sociale ou audit social, avec traçabilité obligatoire des sources.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use when a user asks what the EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) means for their product, whether and when they must report a vulnerability or incident, or what a specific CVE triggers legally. Maps a product with digital elements to CRA scope, product classification, Annex I vulnerability-handling duties, and Article 14 reporting obligations — every legal claim cited from official regulation text fetched live through the Ansvar Gateway MCP connector, joined with live CVE / CISA-KEV / EPSS vulnerability intelligence from the same connector.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Verification-first methodology for the UNMIK Regulation 64 Panels of the Kosovo district courts (2000–2008). Citations are verified against UNMIK/EULEX archives and legal-tools.org. Keeps the Reg. 64 Panels distinct from the Kosovo Specialist Chambers, and clarifies that Reg. 2000/64 permitted (did not impose) internationally-majority panels. Research aid, not legal advice. Part of the open-source "Skills for International Justice" library — methodology: github.com/jeannesulzer/international-criminal-tribunals-skills
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Risk-based vendor assessment framework for IT service providers, technology vendors, and third-party partners under DORA, NIS2, GDPR. Provides three-phase process (Initial Screening / Detailed Assessment / Final Evaluation), six-dimension risk scoring (Financial/Operational/Compliance/Security/Reputational/Strategic) with weighted matrices, full DORA Art. 28-30 contractual checklist, NIS2 Art. 21(2) security measures enumeration, GDPR Art. 28 documentation checks, red flags per dimension, trigger-based review criteria, and document templates. Use when: (1) Evaluating new vendors or technology providers, (2) Conducting critical ICT third-party due diligence under DORA, (3) Performing supply chain security assessment under NIS2, (4) Creating vendor onboarding documentation, (5) Establishing ongoing vendor monitoring, (6) Assessing concentration risk, or (7) Generating executive vendor risk reports.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Toolkit for comprehensive document reading, editing, and creation with visual quality control. Use to work with Word documents (.docx files) for: (1) Reading or extracting content from existing DOCX files, (2) Creating new Word documents with professional formatting, (3) Editing documents requiring precise typography and layout, or any other DOCX reading or generation tasks.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Pick the right LLM for CONTRACT REVIEW — reviewing an existing agreement for risk, deviations from standard, missing protections, and internal contradictions, and proposing redlines. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 legal benchmarks. Contract review is a COMPOSITE skill (extraction + reasoning + redlining + conflict-detection), so this routes by the dominant sub-task. Asks up to 4 quick questions (cost, speed, accuracy/stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/ language), then recommends a primary model + fallback + what to avoid + what a human must verify. Use when someone asks "which model to review this contract / NDA / MSA", "best AI to redline", "route this contract review", or is about to review an agreement without a fixed model.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Drafts a customized Customer Agreement starting from the Y Combinator standard form SaaS template. Tailors the agreement through structured intake questions covering fee structure, data handling, ML rights, implementation services, and more. Applies 18 always-on defaults that transform the raw YC form into a professional starting point (renamed to "Customer Agreement", data privacy section added, warranty restructured, consolidated SLA/support exhibit, etc.). Produces a clean .docx and a lawyer-facing memo explaining every change from the YC standard. Use when user says "draft a SaaS agreement", "YC SaaS", "startup SaaS contract", "customer agreement", "SaaS subscription agreement", or "I need a SaaS agreement starting from the YC form". Also trigger when the user is a startup founder discussing SaaS contracting, even if they don't mention YC specifically.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Writes a settlement letter on the right footing — and warns you when marking it 'without prejudice' won't actually keep it out of court. A genuine settlement letter is normally protected (the judge can't see it), but only if the substance is a real attempt to settle, and even then there are exceptions. The skill picks the correct footing — without prejudice (WP), without prejudice save as to costs (WPSATC / Calderbank), or open — drafts the finished letter, and surfaces the Unilever v Procter & Gamble exceptions that get WP material admitted despite the label, which a plain template won't flag. Built for juniors and in-house counsel drafting a settlement or Calderbank offer who need the footing right the first time. Use when the user asks to draft a WP letter, a Calderbank, a settlement letter, or wants to know whether material is likely protected from disclosure.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Pick the right LLM for LEGAL INFO EXTRACTION — pulling facts, clauses, dates, parties, obligations, and structured fields out of contracts and legal documents. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 benchmarks (legalbenchmarks.ai Info Extraction; CUAD/MAUD/ACORD). Asks up to 4 quick questions (cost, speed, accuracy/stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/language), then recommends a primary model + fallback + what to avoid + what a human must verify. Use when someone asks "which model should I use to extract clauses/data from these documents", "best AI for contract data extraction", "route this extraction task", or is about to pull structured fields from legal docs without a fixed model.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Pick the right LLM for CONTRACT DRAFTING — generating, redlining, or rewriting contract language from instructions. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 legal benchmarks (legalbenchmarks.ai Contract Drafting). Asks up to 4 quick questions (cost, speed, accuracy/ stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/language), then recommends a primary model + fallback + what to avoid + what a human must verify. Use when someone asks "which model should I use to draft this clause/agreement", "best AI for drafting contracts", "route this drafting task", or is about to generate/redline contract text and hasn't fixed a model.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Controlla coerenza e plausibilità delle citazioni normative italiane ed europee in un testo prodotto da un'altra skill legal-tech (o passato dall'avvocato). Verifica formato, esistenza apparente, coerenza interna, segnala citazioni sospette o non risolvibili. Usa quando una skill IT/EU ha appena prodotto un output con riferimenti normativi, o quando l'avvocato chiede esplicitamente "verifica le fonti", "controlla le citazioni", "queste citazioni reggono?".
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。