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.

A jurisdiction-grounding reference file for AI assistants working on Gibraltar legal, regulatory, and compliance research. Corrects systematic errors AI models make when applying English law to Gibraltar — a distinct jurisdiction under the Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006, with its own court hierarchy, civil procedure rules, employment law, and regulatory framework. Covers the source hierarchy, court structure, civil procedure divergences (14-day deemed service, post-Jackson reforms not adopted), employment law specifics (uncapped discrimination awards, 5-employee redundancy threshold), FSC financial services regulation, AML/KYC compliance sources, Gibraltar Companies Act 2014 with UBO public register, and a structured directory of official public record sources. Includes research profiles for lawyers, compliance professionals, and due diligence practitioners. Not legal advice.

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.

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 [Model Context Protocol](https://modelcontextprotocol.io) server that exposes the `international-criminal-tribunals-skills` suite to any MCP client (Claude Desktop, Claude Code, or another host). This is the first MCP server from the Impact Litigation Lab. It reads the tribunal skill folders in this repository live — it does not duplicate their content — and surfaces four capability areas that map onto the suite's verification-first methodology: | Area | Tool / resource | |---|---| | Expose the skills | `list_tribunals`, `get_skill_file`, `get_foundational_texts`, `skill://…` resources | | Verify citations | `verify_citation` | | Search the case law | `search_jurisprudence` | | Retrieve documents | `fetch_document` (with PDF text extraction) | The server never authorises citing case law from memory. `verify_citation` returns the *guidance* to verify a citation against a Tier 1 source; it does not assert correctness. `fetch_document` honours the suite's fallback ladder when an authoritative domain blocks a direct fetch (e.g. icc-cpi.int 403s).

Verification-first methodology for the Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz (JEP), Colombia's transitional justice court under the 2016 Acuerdo Final with FARC-EP. Citations are verified against jep.gov.co before use. Covers the 11 macrocasos (from Caso 01 secuestro through Caso 11 violencia sexual, including Caso 03 falsos positivos), the three sanction tiers (propias, alternativas, ordinarias), TOAR, and the SIVJRNR sister bodies (CEV, UBPD). Guards the key structural distinctions (Sala de Reconocimiento vs Tribunal para la Paz; comparecientes FARC-EP vs Fuerza Pública vs terceros civiles; Acto Legislativo 01/2017 vs Ley Estatutaria 1957/2019). Research aid, not legal advice.

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.

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.

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.

Contract intelligence and contract operations workflow skill for Claude and Codex. Guides the full contract lifecycle review process from intake and playbook normalization through clause review, deviation scoring, negotiation planning, approval routing, QA, and action recommendations. Reviews legal, business, operational, compliance, privacy, security, technology, and AI-related risks across contracts and legal documents. Supports NDAs, SaaS agreements, DPAs, procurement contracts, commercial agreements, contract comparisons, redlines, approval packages, clause research, and drafting. **Warning**-Comprehensive reviews can consume significant Claude/OpenAI tokens, especially for large agreements, playbooks, exhibits, schedules, and multi-document reviews.

Skill open source d'analyse documentaire à vocation scientifique sur la gouvernance des sociétés cotées françaises (SBF 120). Il agrège, sous forme d'index sourcés à la page près, le corpus réglementaire et doctrinal 2020-2025 — rapports AMF et HCGE, Code AFEP-MEDEF, doctrine AMF, priorités ESMA, rapport sénatorial Rietmann/Gay, guide Paris Europlace — complété par recherche web. Sa règle fondatrice est le zéro invention : chaque chiffre, citation et page provient d'une source vérifiée, mot pour mot, en distinguant strictement le régulateur (AMF, ESMA) de la soft law (HCGE, AFEP-MEDEF). Quatre usages : restitution sourcée, analyse longitudinale, audit d'émetteur sur une grille de 13 blocs, croisement thématique multi-émetteurs. Ni conseil juridique, ni conseil en investissement.

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.

Use when a calculator, financial model, investor memo, due diligence report, risk review, dashboard, or client-facing explanation needs clear distinctions between accounting and finance concepts such as cash flow vs profit, EBIT vs EBITDA, CapEx vs OpEx, debt vs equity, market value vs book value, ROI vs ROE, assets vs liabilities, and accounting vs finance.

Use for due diligence, legal-financial risk review, investment or business transaction checklists, and preliminary screening where facts, documents, assumptions, legal uncertainty, debt/equity, assets/liabilities, contracts, tax, regulatory, compliance, technology/product, and financial-model issues must be separated clearly.

Builds a litigation chronology from the disclosure bundle itself — every entry attributed to its source document, behind a CPR 31.22 implied-undertaking check, because documents disclosed in English proceedings may only be used for those proceedings. Adds a privilege screen and case-theory significance tagging, so the output is court-facing work product, not a loose timeline. Use when the user asks to build a chronology or timeline from a disclosure bundle, a matter file, or witness statements, or says 'build the chron', 'what happened when', or needs a Statement of Facts ready timeline.

Reviews or drafts the agreement that pays an employee to settle their claims — and flags the statutory conditions that decide whether it actually binds them. Works under s.203 ERA 1996 for England & Wales. Flags apparent s.203 condition gaps for a solicitor to confirm (writing, specific complaints, independent adviser, identification, insurance, statement of conditions), drafts the substantive terms (sum, tax characterisation, confidentiality, references, restrictive covenants, indemnities), and surfaces enforceability risks. Does not rule on validity and is not legal advice. Use when the user says 'review this settlement agreement', 'draft a settlement agreement', 'compromise agreement' (old term), or asks whether an agreement is binding.

Screens a dismissal — proposed or already done — against the unfair dismissal framework for England & Wales, and shows where it is exposed. Structures the qualifying-service question, the automatically-unfair categories (no qualifying period), and a Burchell / Polkey / band-of-reasonable-responses analysis for a solicitor to verify — it does not determine fairness. Surfaces specific procedural risks. Use when the user says 'is this unfair', 'screen this dismissal', 'ordinary unfair dismissal', 'automatic unfair dismissal', or wants a structured fairness review before or after dismissal.

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.

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.

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.

Verification-first methodology for Section I (War Crimes) of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Citations are verified against the Court of BiH, the ICTY/IRMCT archives and OSCE. Distinguishes ICTY-referred (Rule 11 bis) cases from locally-initiated ones; covers Stanković, Janković and the Maktouf lex mitior ruling. Research aid, not legal advice.

This skill stress-tests a proposed settlement position before an offer goes out or comes back: the assumptions it depends on, your leverage and the opponent’s, the evidential weaknesses, the likely opponent response, and the timing and costs pressures around it. It structures settlement judgment for a better-informed decision; it does not advise whether to settle.

This skill maps disclosure strategy from a case summary, pleading, chronology, or early case theory: the document categories that will matter, likely custodians, adverse material, evidential gaps, search themes, and the risks worth confronting early.

This skill builds a structured audit trail of an AI-assisted task: what the tool was asked to do, what materials it was given, what it produced, how the output was verified, and what was ultimately relied upon. It documents the workflow for supervision and later review without ruling on privilege or disclosure, so the record stays accurate rather than self-serving.