Explore

Evaluate completed mediation-competition problems consisting of general information and confidential packets for both sides. Use when asked to validate, audit, score, quality-control, or assess competition readiness; identify factual, numerical, chronological, authority, commercial-logic, or confidentiality defects; test mediation usefulness, BATNAs, settlement corridors, information asymmetry, and opportunities for firmness, cooperation, imagination, and clarification; or produce an author-only validation report. Perform a qualified partial review when packets are missing. Diagnose by default; do not generate a new problem or edit source packets unless repairs are expressly requested. Requires access to all supplied files and a host capable of reading their formats; otherwise disclose the unreviewed material and resulting limits.

Create original, competition-ready commercial mediation problems and confidential packets with iterative validation. Use when a user provides a topic, industry, dispute sketch, or existing general-information packet and wants a public packet plus confidential packets for both sides—or one named side. Build a narrow but workable settlement corridor; verify factual and numerical consistency, information asymmetry, balance, originality, and commercial feasibility; and revise until deterministic and semantic exit criteria pass. Do not use merely to summarize an existing packet or to advise parties in a real dispute. Requires local file access; Python 3 is recommended for bundled deterministic checks, with disclosed manual fallbacks when unavailable.

Creates and validates original commercial mediation competition problems for legal education and advocacy training. Use the generator to turn a topic or dispute sketch into general information, confidential packets for both sides, an author-only case model, and validation records. Use the validator to audit completed packets for internal consistency, balanced information asymmetry, credible settlement options, numerical coherence, confidentiality boundaries, and competition readiness. The two skills may be used sequentially or independently. Designed for fictional training problems, not legal advice or real client matters.

Professional PDF solution. Create PDFs using HTML+Paged.js (academic papers, reports, documents). Process existing PDFs using Python (read, extract, merge, split, fill forms). Supports KaTeX math formulas, Mermaid diagrams, three-line tables, citations, and other academic elements. Also use this skill when user explicitly requests LaTeX (.tex) or native LaTeX compilation.

Builds compliance checklists for business scenarios involving GDPR, PIPL, or advertising/data laws. Outputs a structured checklist with check items, legal basis, risk levels, and actionable recommendations. Triggered by requests like \"run a compliance check,\" \"GDPR/PIPL compliance,\" \"pre-launch review,\" \"privacy impact assessment (PIA/DPIA),\" or asking if a feature is compliant.

Assess and classify legal risks using a severity-by-likelihood framework with escalation criteria. Use when evaluating contract risk, assessing deal exposure, classifying issues by severity, or determining whether a matter needs senior counsel or outside legal review.

Moteur de recherche libre sur le droit français et européen. Jurisprudence des deux ordres et textes consolidés, reliés entre eux et interrogeables en langage naturel, sur le web comme depuis les assistants IA (MCP).

Assistant de recherche juridique (librejustice.fr) : serveur MCP distant avec OAuth automatique + skills — jurisprudence et normes (codes, traités, UE, droit étranger).

Find and quote statutory and regulatory law with the LibreJustice MCP tools — French codes at any date, EU law, treaties and bilateral accords, foreign codes (59 countries), collective agreements, BOFiP, circulaires. Use whenever the user asks what a text says or said at a given date, which version or which text applies to a situation, needs the exact wording of a provision for a brief, or works with foreign or international law in French litigation, even if they never mention LibreJustice.

Search and cite French case law and statutes with the LibreJustice MCP tools. Use whenever the user asks about French or European court decisions (Cour de cassation, Conseil d'État, cours d'appel, TJ/TA, CNDA, Conseil constitutionnel, CNIL, CEDH, CJUE), needs authorities for a brief, requête, référé or consultation, wants to check how courts rule on an issue, needs counts of decisions on a point, or asks what a code article says at a given date, even if they never mention LibreJustice.

Checks the formal coherence and plausibility of Italian and EU legal citations (statutes, case law) in text produced by Claude or other legal-AI skills. Reports clause-by-clause on what is well-formed, suspicious, or unresolvable against real norms, covering Cassazione, Corte Costituzionale, Consiglio di Stato, TAR, Normattiva, EUR-Lex, Garante Privacy, AGCM, ANAC. Minimal-surface variant: no proprietary backend fetch, allowlist limited to official Italian and EU institutional registries.

Guide for end-to-end California Bar Exam prep — the five essays (13 subjects), the 90-minute Performance Test, and the 200-question MBE (7 subjects). Built by a practicing attorney who used it to compress four months of prep into a week and a half.

Guide for creating high-quality MCP (Model Context Protocol) servers that enable LLMs to interact with external services through well-designed tools. Use when building MCP servers to integrate external APIs or services, whether in Python (FastMCP) or Node/TypeScript (MCP SDK).

Rigorous multi-pass editor for law review articles, student notes, seminar papers and other legal scholarship. Runs six specialized passes — structure, substantive critique, Bluebook citations, grammar and clarity, fact-checking against sources, and a synthesizing memo — and delivers an editorial memo with issues prioritized as critical, substantial or minor and keyed to specific footnotes and paragraphs. Handles articles of any length, including 50,000-word pieces, by chunking on section boundaries. Reads .docx directly. Use when editing, critiquing, workshopping or pre-submission-reviewing academic legal writing. Triggers on "edit my article," "review this draft," "critique my note," "check my Bluebook citations," "is my argument sound," "read my law review piece," "workshop this paper," "pre-submission review." Chunking needs Python 3; fact-checking needs web search; both degrade gracefully without.

Takes a skill — a .skill or .zip archive, a bare SKILL.md, a folder, or just a raw idea — and produces a package ready for public distribution on lawve.ai, plus the exact entries for the submission form. Runs a gate first: skills with no plausible legal use, unsafe code, or licensing bars are declined with reasons, and general-purpose skills that could serve legal work are offered a legal adaptation instead. Then applies the standard compliance transforms — structure, metadata, attribution, dependency ladders, orphaned-file repair, limitations disclosure — validates the result, and delivers a zip. Raw ideas are gated first, built (via skill-creator where available), then adapted. Use for "make this Lawve-compliant," "prep this skill for Lawve," "package for lawve.ai," "is this suitable for Lawve," "get my skill ready to publish," or any request to ready a skill for the Lawve catalogue.

Transforms reading-oriented prose into listening-optimized text for flat, neutral vocal delivery — TTS, podcasts, audiobooks, CLE audio. Carries a legal layer: case citations, section symbols, subsection lettering, Latin terms and footnotes are unspeakable as written, so a brief, opinion, statute, contract or memo needs them expanded, restructured or stripped before it can be listened to — and quoted authority is never rewritten. Use when converting written content for audio, preparing oral argument by ear, producing CLE or client-facing audio, or making a document listenable on a commute. Triggers on "make this listenable," "convert for audio," "optimize for reading aloud," "prepare for TTS," "make an audio version," "podcast script," "read this aloud." Supports English, French, Spanish, Italian, German and Portuguese; outputs plain text, ElevenLabs audio tags, or SSML for Amazon Polly, Google or Azure.

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 site, a self-contained single-file HTML page, a Word document, a PowerPoint deck, or LaTeX source. 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. Design is opinionated but colors, fonts and brand label are overridable. Most formats need Python and a writable filesystem; single-file HTML works where the host has neither.

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."

Briefs statutes and legislative Acts using the MAPS + RULES framework: a system-level map of the whole Act (citation and text status, purpose, structure, scope, definitions) plus operational rule-modules for each operative provision (elements, legal effect, exceptions, procedure, consequences, forum, interaction rules). Works from statutory text supplied by the user and never invents statutory language. Use when briefing a statute, analyzing legislative text, mapping statutory architecture, extracting the elements of a provision, or applying a statute to facts. Triggers on "brief this statute", "analyze this Act", "map the statute", "apply [statute] to [scenario]", "what are the elements of [provision]", "statutory analysis", and on references to codified sections such as 42 U.S.C. or the Texas Health and Safety Code. Two modes: (A) text-only briefing for structural analysis, and (B) scenario-driven briefing that applies provisions to specific facts with verbatim quotation and pinpoint cites.

Produces detailed law-school case briefs of United States judicial opinions in a fixed nine-section structure: memory jogger, facts, procedural history, judicial votes, holding, opinion-by-opinion analysis, five future-application hypotheticals, critique, and verified key quotations. Also builds vote tables, cross-case consistency tables, perspective-based critiques, and LaTeX in article, Beamer and casebook-chapter formats. Use whenever someone asks to brief a case, analyse or explain an opinion, summarise a decision for students, generate hypotheticals from a holding, critique a judgment, tabulate how justices voted, or convert case analysis to LaTeX. Triggers on "brief this case", "case brief", "explain the holding", "what did the court hold", "hypotheticals based on", "critique this opinion", "vote table", "Beamer presentation", "chapter brief", and on any reference to a judicial opinion or Supreme Court decision in a teaching context. Requires web search to verify quotations, votes and holdings.

Produces an adversarial attack on a legal argument that survives reply. Runs the opposing-counsel discipline twice: an unrestrained first pass, then the same instrument turned on that pass to cut every point that collapses under challenge - attacks on facts your own side has conceded, objections belonging to the wrong forum, speculation about documents and motives, gotchas with innocent explanations, overclaims, self-refuting assertions, and padding. The deliverable is one standalone attack containing only what can be defended, capped at five heads, not a discussion of the discarded draft. Use to attack, stress-test, red-team or rebut a submission, brief, motion, witness statement, letter or piece of structured legal reasoning when the output must be something you could stand up and say. Also use when an earlier adversarial review came back overlong, scattershot or padded with points you do not trust. Derived from Opposing Counsel Review by Larissa Meredith-Flister (Apache-2.0). Formal British English.

Recherche de jurisprudence et analyse statistique à partir de décisions du fond (droit français) selon différents modules (dommage corporel, rupture du contrat de travail, baux commerciaux, droit de la construction...). Recherches qualitatives de décisions de la Cour de cassation. Permet de répondre à des questions telles que : - quelle est l'indemnisation médiane du préjudice d'agrément pour les victimes de plus de 60 ans ? - le taux horaire de la tierce personne est-il plus élevé à Paris ou à Versailles ? - donne moi les décisions donnant l'indemnisation la plus haute en cas de harcèlement au travail - quelles sont les décisions de la cour de cassation rendues au visa du principe de la réparation intégrale ?

Expert WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) advisor covering WCAG 2.0, 2.1, and 2.2 — the W3C international accessibility standards. Use this skill whenever a user asks about WCAG success criteria, conformance levels (A/AA/AAA), accessibility audits, POUR principles, accessibility statements, ARIA patterns, colour contrast, keyboard accessibility, screen reader compatibility, mobile accessibility, cognitive accessibility, WCAG 2.2 new criteria, WCAG 3.0 preview, legal requirements referencing WCAG (EN 301 549, EAA, ADA, Section 508), or mapping WCAG to accessibility laws.

Expert Vietnam Personal Data Protection Law (PDPL) compliance advisor for Law No. 91/2025/QH15 and implementing Decree 356/2025/ND-CP (effective January 1, 2026). Use this skill for gap analysis against the Vietnam PDPL, data subject rights fulfilment workflows, cross-border data transfer impact assessments, privacy notices and internal policies, breach notification procedures, sector-specific obligations (finance, AI, cloud, blockchain), and DPO qualification reviews. Trigger whenever a user mentions Vietnam data privacy, VN-PDPL, Nghị định 356, Vietnamese personal data, or cross-border transfers involving Vietnamese citizens' data.