A drafting-and-review copilot for a founders' / co-founders' agreement — the terms fixing equity, vesting, IP, roles, control, deadlock, and departure between cofounders. Jurisdiction-agnostic, anchored on the Delaware C-corp default. Two modes: DRAFT (intake → equity & vesting → clauses → blocker triage → pre-signature check) and REVIEW (audit an existing agreement against an 18-clause checklist and red-flag scan). It handles the highest-dispute terms first-class: the equity split as documented reasoning (not a fake calculator), reverse vesting and the 83(b) clock, present-tense IP assignment (the Stanford v. Roche trap), leaver buyback and dead equity, and the deadlock clause most tools omit. It drafts for the venture, never one founder against another. Not legal advice.

AI co-counsel for divorce and family-law attorneys — a jurisdiction-portable scaffold spanning the full matter lifecycle. Eight operating modes mirror how a matter actually moves: intake and onboarding, financial disclosure, children and support, property division and QDRO, discovery and document review, drafting, negotiation and mediation prep, and court prep — plus post-judgment modification and enforcement. The methodology is jurisdiction-agnostic: it forces real, verifiable research for every local form, formula, or rule rather than inventing one, handling common-law, community-property, civil-law, and MENA personal-status regimes as variables. Built around one non-negotiable: privilege. It drafts, analyzes, organizes, and pressure-tests. It is not the lawyer.

A zero-hallucination privacy-policy generator that takes anyone — non-lawyer founder to lawyer — from a guided intake to a publishable, jurisdiction-aware privacy policy. Jurisdiction-first: it detects which laws apply from where your users are, then drafts only the required clauses — GDPR/EU + UK, US (CCPA/CPRA, ~20 state laws, COPPA, sector overlays), and global/MENA (LGPD, Quebec Law 25, India DPDP, China PIPL, UAE/DIFC, Saudi PDPL), plus app-store, cookies, and AI/EU AI Act disclosures. Its rule: state only what you confirm; never invent a statute, citation, fine, or date — every claim is source-cited and QA-gated. Not legal advice.

An end-to-end method for drafting and finalising a complex, multi-pillar regulated fintech agreement — from intake to signature. Authored from a senior fintech lawyer's manual: a licensed payment-services provider engaging a counterparty across agent cash-in/cash-out, QR payments, wallet e-payments, and a marketplace, each with its own regulatory profile. Runs five phases and fourteen steps: regulatory mapping (activity-to-licence matrix, grey-zone classification gates), architecture (framework-plus-sub-agreement structure, ring-fenced marketplace), the regulatory–commercial balance (what flexes vs what cannot), core drafting (authority, float mechanics, hard-coded regulator caps, liability — all tracking control), execution-blocker triage, and a pre-signature check closing open blockers as conditions precedent. It refuses to invent licence-specific values or draft a representation as true without executed evidence. Use it to structure, draft, negotiate, or review any regulated payments contract.

Restructure any rough build, research, or legal-drafting request into an IRAC-shaped prompt — Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion — optimized for a frontier model. It's the bar-exam framework, repurposed as prompt engineering. The skill leads with the issue and ends with the conclusion (where models weight attention most), forces you to name your constraints and non-goals, and specifies what "good" looks like before a single token is generated. Use it before any non-trivial build, or whenever a vague ask deserves a precise brief.

When your bar comes asking "show me how you billed AI-assisted work" — and ABA 512, Florida 24-1, California, New York, and DC all have opinions out — you need an artifact that survives review. billable-time produces it. From your Claude Code session logs, it drafts reviewable time entries plus a printable HTML audit packet with: SHA-256 chain of evidence (source files + matter.yml + active disclosure pack + verifiable artifact self-hash), attorney identity and signature block, a bar-opinion disclosure pack with starter language for five jurisdictions, and content-aware deterministic narratives derived from filename and tool shape — never from prompt text by default. The tool refuses to bill on its own. --strict mode refuses to ship the artifact if any audit invariant fails (broad routes, missing attorney, missing/unverified disclosure). Comes as a Node CLI and a self-contained browser version (no backend; JSONL never leaves the page). 15 invariant tests verify the contract. AGPL-3.0.

Claude skill that turns Claude into a Connecticut-specific divorce planner — nine operating modes from pre-flight intake to post-judgment modification, modeled on Untangle.us's feature surface and grounded in C.G.S. Title 46b, Practice Book Chapter 25, and the 2026-08-01 CCSG schedule. Covers eligibility triage (nonadversarial under § 46b-44a vs standard), financial affidavit (JD-FM-6), child support (JD-FM-220 / CCSG-1 / 1A), alimony (§ 46b-82 fourteen factors), parenting plan (with GAL/AMC escalation under JD-FM-224), settlement agreement (JD-FM-172, TCJA-aware), filing packet (marshal 12-day rule, $360 + $50 fees, JD-FM-75 waiver), and post-judgment motion practice. Hard UPL gate: refuses non-CT, domestic violence (refers CTCADV 1-888-774-2900), hidden assets, courtroom advocacy. Heppner-aware: AI prompts are not privileged. First family-law skill in the Lawvable registry.

Tribunal-prep skill modeled on Neal Katyal's Nov 2025 SCOTUS tariffs argument and his AI sparring partner "Harvey." Five phases: (1) profile each decision-maker from prior opinions, questions, concurrences, and dissents — surface their doctrinal commitments and institutional concerns; (2) predict the bench — 3–7 likely questions per judge with the worry behind each, verbatim phrasing where confidence is high; (3) map escape routes — the narrowest holding each skeptical judge could sign without abandoning prior commitments; (4) spar adversarially — relentless follow-ups, calls out parroted lines, tracks which questions broke the lawyer; (5) hand the lawyer back to themselves with a < 150-word index card for the podium. The model is the sparring partner. The lawyer still wins the case. Use for oral argument, motion hearings, depositions, arbitrations, or stress-testing a brief before filing.