Explore

Recherche de fiches individuelles dans l'annuaire "Enseignants-chercheurs" du Portail Universitaire du Droit (univ-droit.fr/universitaires). Utiliser ce skill dès que l'utilisateur demande de chercher, vérifier ou retrouver un enseignant-chercheur — professeur, professeur junior, maître de conférences, PRAG, directeur/chargé de recherche, professeur associé — sur univ-droit.fr, que ce soit pour trouver sa fonction, son université de rattachement, sa bibliographie, son laboratoire, ou pour vérifier l'orthographe d'un nom, même si l'URL exacte de la fiche n'est pas connue à l'avance.

Recherche de fiches individuelles dans l'annuaire "Docteurs en droit" du Portail Universitaire du Droit (univ-droit.fr/annuaire-des-docteurs-en-droit). Utiliser ce skill dès que l'utilisateur demande de chercher, vérifier ou retrouver un docteur en droit (titulaire d'un doctorat, non enseignant-chercheur en poste) sur univ-droit.fr, que ce soit pour trouver le sujet et la date de sa thèse, son directeur de thèse, son établissement, sa bibliographie, ou pour vérifier l'orthographe d'un nom, même si l'URL exacte de la fiche n'est pas connue à l'avance.

Recherche et vérification de revues et encyclopédies juridiques francophones via le site public meta-doctrinal.org (Annuaire des revues, 300+ titres ; Annuaire des encyclopédies, ~280 titres — JurisClasseurs, Répertoires, Lamy, Mémentos, etc.). Utiliser ce skill dès qu'un utilisateur demande si une revue ou encyclopédie juridique existe, veut retrouver sa fiche, cherche sa direction scientifique, ses auteurs, son éditeur, ses consignes éditoriales, ou veut comparer/lister des titres par éditeur (Dalloz, LexisNexis, Lamy Liaisons, Éditions Législatives, Lextenso, Lexbase, Éditions Francis Lefebvre, Berger-Levrault). Toujours consulter ce skill avant de répondre de mémoire à ce type de question — meta-doctrinal.org est la source de référence à interroger en direct, même si le titre semble connu.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sets up the clinic, onboards students, runs structured intake, tracks deadlines with malpractice-aware caution, and hands off cases at semester end — built within ABA Formal Op. 512.

Drills Socratically, briefs cases, builds outlines, runs bar prep sessions tuned to your jurisdiction, grades IRAC practice, and plans the study schedule — without ever writing it for you.

Ce skill génère des sujets d'entraînement pour les deux épreuves écrites de consultation du CRFPA : l'épreuve de droit des obligations (tronc commun) et l'épreuve de spécialité (civil, affaires, social, pénal, administratif, international et européen, fiscal). Chaque sujet est accompagné d'une grille de notation détaillée sur 20 points. Vous ciblez un thème précis, ou vous laissez le skill procéder à un tirage au sort couvrant l'ensemble du programme. Connexion aux MCP OpenLegi et GoodLegal requise : toutes les références d'articles et d'arrêts sont vérifiées sur les sources officielles, sans citation inventée

Builds a high-fidelity interactive legal assessment as a single self-contained HTML artifact. Output includes a live countdown timer, contract review tasks with hover-annotated problem clauses, candidate answer textareas, model answers hidden behind reveal blocks, scenario-based legal memo tasks, strategy and function-building questions, and a pre-submission checklist that encodes the marking criteria. Use when the user needs to (1) assess a legal candidate with a realistic timed exercise, (2) train or onboard junior lawyers using problem sets rather than doctrine, (3) help a candidate prepare for a real take-home assessment they are facing, (4) build educational materials for law students, in-house teams, or compliance training, or (5) produce scenario-based training modules on specific legal topics. Triggers on "legal test", "take-home", "mock exam", "contract redline exercise", "candidate assessment", "legal training exercise", "practice test", or similar phrasing even when informal.

Optimise Claude pour la relecture des textes en français, qu'ils soient littéraires, techniques, professionnels... Vérification de la grammaire, de l'orthographe, traque des barbarismes, suggestions de modifications stylistiques.

Génération assistée de QCM (questionnaires à choix multiples) avec export vers Moodle (GIFT, XML), Wooclap (Excel), Kahoot! et Word. Supporte QCM légers (ludiques) et approfondis (évaluatifs), à choix unique et réponses multiples.

Assistant académique pour enseignants-chercheurs en droit. Six tâches : (1) recherche juridique approfondie avec accent doctrinal, (2) relecture de documents avec vérification des références, commentaires Word, détection d'indices de plagiat/IA et cohérence argumentative, (3) création de sujets et corrigés d'exercices juridiques universitaires, (4) mise à jour de cours, ouvrages et documents juridiques, (5) création de cours avec support docx et PPTX, (6) préparation de fiches de TD.

Framework for demonstrating AI capabilities in legal contexts. Provides detailed personas across tenant law, business contracts, startup disputes, employment claims, and consumer protection with progressive complexity scenarios. Use when: (1) Demonstrating AI-powered legal triage or intake systems, (2) Showcasing responsible AI-assisted client interactions, (3) Training staff on appropriate AI use in legal contexts, (4) Creating realistic scenarios for legal tech presentations, (5) Developing educational materials about AI in legal services, or (6) Testing AI-powered legal information systems in controlled environments.