Explore

Search, retrieval, and analysis of EU legal acts, as well as Polish legislation and draft laws implementing EU regulations (e.g. PPWR, CBAM, EUDR, ESPR, CSRD, CSDDD, GPSR, the AI Act, batteries, and ecodesign). Use when the user needs information on legal status, application dates, transitional provisions, relationships between legal acts, compliance obligations, and a report supported by legal bases and official sources.

Assesses which of the Art. 50(1)-(5) transparency obligations of the EU AI Act apply to a given AI system's provider or deployer, grounded in the final Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content (June 2026) and the Commission's draft Art. 50 Guidelines. Covers AI-chatbot disclosure, deepfake and synthetic-content marking/watermarking, emotion-recognition and biometric-categorisation notices, the machine-readable marking duty, the obviousness exceptions, and the implementation timeline. Outputs a formal mini-report plus a per-obligation compliance checklist with gap flags. For breadth-first tier triage use the EU AI Act System Classifier; for raw Art. 50 text and Q&A use the EU AI Act Knowledge Base; for the full role x tier matrix use the EU AI Act Obligations Mapper.

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.

Determines whether a specific AI-agent action, output, recommendation, or proposed commitment remains admissible for execution or institutional reliance under current authority, delegated scope, evidence, facts, policy, risk, escalation, and revocation conditions. Use this Skill before an enterprise or regulated AI agent executes, updates records, triggers workflows, communicates externally, or before an institution relies on an agentic output in a way that creates legal, financial, operational, regulatory, customer, employee, patient, citizen, market, contractual, or reputational consequence.

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.

Practitioner skill for EU Regulation 2023/2854 (Data Act). Covers Chapters II-VII (IoT data access, mandatory B2B sharing, unfair contract terms, public-sector exceptional need, cloud switching, third-country governmental access) and Chapter VIII (interoperability and smart contracts, gate-only). Use when the user asks about Data Act rights or obligations, drafts a Data Act notice or letter, reviews a data-sharing or cloud-switching contract under the Data Act, runs a Data Act gap analysis, or asks how the Data Act interacts with GDPR, the DMA, the Trade Secrets Directive, or sectoral law. Triggers include "Data Act", "Datengesetz", "Regulation (EU) 2023/2854", "Art. 4(1) request", "Art. 5(1) third-party request", "trade-secret handbrake", "cloud switching obligations", "Chapter VI", "Ch V exceptional need", and references to specific Data Act articles or recitals.

Review, draft, or redline a Data Processing Agreement (DPA / Auftragsverarbeitungsvertrag / AVV) under Art. 28 GDPR, or prepare a Joint Controller Arrangement under Art. 26 GDPR (basic). Supports bilingual output (DE/EN), both controller- and processor-side perspectives, and two review depths — quick (Art. 28(3)(a)–(h) coverage) and negotiation-grade (clause-by-clause risk scoring).

Authoritative regulatory Q&A grounded in 70 official EU source documents, including the 2026 Commission draft guidelines on Art. 6 high-risk classification. Answers any EU AI Act question with article-level citations from the full regulation text, Commission guidelines, EDPB/EDPS opinions, codes of practice, harmonised standards, FRIA guides, and sector-specific guidance — covering penalties, timelines, GPAI obligations, high-risk and prohibited practices, and the AI Act / GDPR interplay.

Depth assessment of whether an AI system is high-risk under Art. 6 of the EU AI Act, grounded in the Commission's draft Art. 6(5) classification guidelines (general principles + Annex I + Annex III). Covers the Annex I product-safety route, all eight Annex III areas with worked examples, the Art. 6(3) exception and its profiling re-exception, and the Art. 25 quasi-provider trap. Outputs a structured decision block, a practitioner memo, and a JSON interchange artefact.

EU Digital Regulation Legal Analysis Forge — generates a tailored expert prompt for structured legal analysis of an EU digital-regulation document, optionally executes it in-session, and always produces a plain-English explainer alongside the formal output. Handles Regulations, Directives, Commission Guidelines, EDPB Opinions, CJEU and AG judgments, national DPA decisions, codes of conduct, and draft consultations across the EU digital stack.

GDPR Transfer Impact Assessment for Chapter V transfers under the EDPB Recommendations 01/2020 six-step methodology, the CNIL TIA Guide (January 2025), and EDPB essential guarantees. Handles transfer qualification, Art. 45 adequacy fast-tracks, Art. 46 full assessments with country profiles for 12 jurisdictions, and balanced Art. 49 derogation analysis. Outputs a Markdown report, a .docx formal TIA, and a JSON delta for RoPA interchange.

Adversarial premortem for England & Wales civil litigation - builds the strongest version of a case, then attacks it from four angles to find where it loses before opposing counsel does. Runs an adversarial premortem on a UK litigation matter. Builds the strongest version of the case, then attacks it from four angles — procedural, substantive, evidentiary, strategic — to find where it actually loses. Returns a ranked stress-test brief: failure scenarios, evidence inconsistencies, blind spots, mitigations, and one brutal one-sentence verdict. Use before issue, before settlement negotiations, before a litigation-funder pitch, or before deciding whether to take a case.

Draft, adapt, and review contracts and clauses aligned with The Chancery Lane Project's methodology for reducing carbon emissions through legal agreements. Use when Claude needs to: (1) Draft new climate-aligned clauses (e.g., net zero commitments, carbon accounting, supply chain decarbonization), (2) Adapt or modify existing contracts to incorporate climate objectives, (3) Review and analyze clauses for alignment with climate goals and decarbonization strategies, (4) Provide guidance on The Chancery Lane Project's house style and drafting methodology for climate-conscious legal work.

Performs structured compliance review, clause redlining, and drafting suggestions for legal documents (privacy policies, data processing agreements, vendor and SaaS contracts) against India's DPDPA 2023 and the EU GDPR. Flags clauses as compliant, at-risk, or non-compliant with reasoning, and proposes ready-to-use model replacement language.

Produces properly-formatted legal documents in Word (.docx). The user provides the substantive content (instructions, attached files, project knowledge); the skill handles document architecture and formatting. * No precedent or template required * Seven document families: agreements, corporate documents, litigation, memos, employment, policies, correspondence * Jurisdiction-agnostic — works across any legal system the user specifies * Multi-Chain numbering, defined-terms convention, structured recitals, atomic signature blocks * Also reformats existing .docx to a consistent house style * Works in Claude.ai, Cowork, and Claude for Word

Adjudicates whether a hit generated by sanctions, PEP, or adverse-media screening is a true positive, false positive, or requires human escalation. Use whenever a user presents a screening alert, a name match against a watchlist (OFAC SDN, EU consolidated list, UK OFSI, UN list, PEP list, adverse media hit, etc.), or asks to clear a screening hit / reduce false positives / determine whether a flagged name is actually the listed party. Use even when the user describes the task casually — "is this person actually on the sanctions list", "did we get a real match", "clear this alert", "I have a hit on X" — these are all screening-adjudication tasks. Produces a deterministic determination with full audit trail (structured JSON + human-readable narrative). Designed for use by compliance analysts and screening systems.

Determines whether a given subject matter qualifies for copyright protection under EU law by applying the Cofemel two-step test (concept of work + originality), grounded in fifteen CJEU judgments (including the most recent Mio/Konektra and Calinescu) and the four EU directive provisions on originality. It argues from one of two positions: pro-rightsholder (establishing that the work is original) or pro-alleged-infringer (contesting work status or originality via the four exclusion grounds — technical function, rule-dictated outcome, sweat of the brow, idea/functionality). It includes sector-specific modules for photography, software/GUI, sporting events, databases, applied art, functional texts, derivative works/critical editions, and multimedia works.

Audits a legal document against legal design principles. Scores the document on six pillars: language patterns (bureaucratese, archaisms, passive voice, nominalization), readability (Flesch Reading Ease and language-specific equivalents), structure and navigation, hidden conditions (material obligations buried away from their headings), statutory duplication (restating the law instead of citing it), and visual hierarchy where layout is available. Assessment-only; does not rewrite the document. Works on English, French, and German documents, inferring the applicable jurisdiction from the document's language and textual signals: governing-law clause, statute citations, party addresses. Use when a user shares a legal document (contract, NDA, T&C, privacy policy, internal policy) asking how good the drafting is from a legal design perspective, whether it is readable, whether it contains buried clauses or restates the law, or how it scores on Flesch / LIX / Amstad / Kandel-Moles readability metrics.

Audits a website for compliance with Azerbaijan's Law on Personal Data No. 998-IIIQ and, where applicable, EU GDPR plus ePrivacy/cookie consent rules. Inventories the privacy documents present (privacy policy, cookie policy, cookie banner, consent flow, controller and DPO contact, data subject rights channel, cross-border transfer disclosures, AZ operator-registration references) and scores each against the applicable statutory requirements. Produces a dual-layer report: a plain-language traffic-light summary for business owners plus a clause-by-clause findings table with article-level citations for lawyers. Assessment-only, no drafting. Use whenever the user shares a URL or privacy/cookie policy text for an AZ-based or AZ-targeted site; also when the user mentions an .az domain, Law 998, the AZ State Register, ePrivacy, an Art. 27 EU representative, or asks "is my site GDPR compliant", "do I need to register as an operator in Azerbaijan", or "is our cookie banner lawful" even without the word "audit".

A working tool for lawyers advising on the EU Data Act (Regulation (EU) 2023/2854). Hand it the facts of a matter and it returns a classification memo, a drafting starter, a verbatim regulation lookup, an applied legal analysis, or a gap audit. Every output quotes verbatim from the bundled regulation and the European Commission's FAQ rather than paraphrasing from memory. Sixteen drafting templates cover what lawyers actually draft against: Art. 3(2) and 3(3) pre-contract notices, Art. 25 data-processing-service clauses, Art. 26, 28, and 29 public pages, the three-part trade-secret refusal pack, a safety and security restriction clause, and a third-party data-sharing request. Output goes to chat by default. A one-click Word export styled for client work is available after the chat answer, with a verified-as-of stamp and live EUR-Lex and FAQ links so currency is always visible on the page.

Generate a spreadsheet of test entries — newly designated names from OFAC, OFSI, and EU sanctions lists plus deliberate variations of those names — to validate that a sanctions screening system catches fresh designations and is tuned to the right fuzziness threshold. Use this whenever the user asks for sanctions list update test data, screening regression test data, screening QA, fuzzy match calibration, or wants to verify their screening lists are current. Trigger even if the user doesn't say 'screening' explicitly — phrases like 'test my sanctions list', 'check our SDN coverage', 'is my list up to date', or 'build me a regression set from the latest designations' should also invoke this skill.

GDPR compliance audit of a website by a GDPR practitioner/DPO. Systematic assessment using a 10-section checklist: legal notice, hosting provider, forms, newsletter, privacy policy, cookies, passwords, trackers, processors and transfers outside the EU, and accessibility of data subject rights, plus a 22-item appendix covering Articles 13/14 GDPR. Produces a structured report (Markdown, optional .docx) with an overall compliance level, blocking issues, points requiring attention, priority recommendations, and cited regulatory sources (LCEN, GDPR, ePrivacy, CNIL decisions, EDPB, DPF). Tool-agnostic: automated browsing or fallback copy-paste mode. 7 decision trees for edge cases. The practitioner validates all statuses before the report is sent to the client. Technical analysis only, no legal advice.

Systematic analysis of a Data Processing Agreement (DPA) in light of Article 28 of the GDPR, EDPB Guidelines 07/2020 and 02/2024, the 2021 Standard Contractual Clauses, and Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. Generates a structured, clause-by-clause report based on 18 criteria (13 mandatory + 5 supplementary) with a 🟢/ 🟡/🔴, a detailed analysis of international transfers (structured table + government access under the Cloud Act/FISA 702), verification of AI system usage, ready-to-insert contractual remedies, and questions to ask the provider. Designed for DPOs and GDPR practitioners who negotiate or audit data processing agreements.

Access EU law. Search and retrieve Directives, Regulations, Treaties and CJEU case law from GoodLegal API and EUR-Lex.