Explore

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.

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.

BGE/ATF/DTF precedent research, case strategy, legal drafting, and citation verification across all 26 Swiss cantons with Anwaltsgeheimnis privacy protection.

Compliant, retrieval-grounded research over investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) awards and decisions. Use when the user asks about ICSID / investment-treaty arbitration cases, awards, or doctrines (fair and equitable treatment, expropriation, jurisdiction, costs, annulment, etc.) and wants answers grounded in the actual document text with pinpoint citations. Identifies the correct document on the case page, confirms it against the PDF's own first pages, retrieves primary documents on demand from ICSID, PCA, etc., never scrapes or hosts a corpus in violation of applicable terms, and cites only retrieved text.

Routes any legal task to the right LLM, like OpenRouter but for legal work and grounded in benchmarks instead of brand loyalty. Built from mid-2026 legal evals (legalbenchmarks.ai, Vals AI × Stanford LegalBench across 124 models, Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark, the Atticus Project's CUAD/MAUD/ACORD) plus translation evidence (WMT25, SwiLTra-Bench, ArabLegalEval). Covers five verticals: contract drafting, info extraction, legal research, contract review, and legal translation (including Arabic/MENA). Each asks up to four questions (cost, speed, accuracy/stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/language), then returns a primary model, a fallback, what to avoid, and what a human must verify. Core principle: capability is not controllability, so every route ends with a verification step. Not legal advice; a lawyer owns the output.

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 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.

Ce skill donne accès à l'API de judilibre. Vous formulez votre demande en français, il interroge la base Judlibre et renvoie les réponses. Attention le skill ne fonctionne que si des domaines supplémentaires sont utilisés et que l'utilisateur a rentré sa propre clé Judlibre. Ce skill et son auteur n'ont aucun lien avec la Cour de cassation ou Judilibre.

Asesor experto en litigación civil latinoamericana bajo sistemas de derecho civil. Está diseñado para asistir a abogados litigantes, equipos legales internos y clientes directos con estrategia procesal, análisis de riesgos y orientación sobre el proceso civil en América Latina. Al final de cada sesión redacta un correo electrónico claro que resume los hallazgos para el cliente. Cinco modos de operación: 1) Estrategia: cómo enfocar el litigio, qué vía procesal elegir, cómo construir la posición del cliente. 2) Riesgo: evaluar viabilidad, probabilidades de éxito, prescripción, caducidad. 3) Proceso: etapas del proceso, plazos, recursos disponibles, pasos inmediatos. 4) Asesoría cliente: explicaciones claras para clientes. 5) Email al cliente: borrador automático de email al final de cualquier análisis.

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.

La compétence Normalisation juridique FR nettoie un document Word rédigé en français juridique. Elle distingue deux régimes : les corrections déterministes (apostrophes courbes, guillemets français, espaces insécables, insécables des références — art. 1240, n° 21-12.345, 50 % —, ordinaux 1ère → 1re, ligatures œ, la loi dispose et non stipule, anglicismes-calques), appliquées directement ; et les réécritures de jugement (virgule avant « et », ternaires creux, formules emphatiques, harmonisations), posées en révisions Word soumises à votre acceptation. Chaque changement est consigné et restitué en tableau récapitulatif : on revient en arrière mot à mot — « défais 3, 7-10 ». La normalisation des citations reste purement formelle. Fonctionne en Cowork ou sur fichier Word.

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.

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

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.

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.

Turn complex legal analysis into clear, commercially useful client-facing advice. Use this whenever the user has dense legal material — drafting, internal analysis, counsel notes, research memos, pleadings, a case update, or correspondence — and wants it converted into something a client can actually understand and act on. Trigger on phrases like 'explain this to the client', 'put this in plain English', 'translate this for a non-lawyer', 'turn this into client-facing advice', 'make this client-ready', 'draft a client update', or when the user shares legal analysis and asks 'what does this mean for them'. Also trigger when the user wants a board summary, litigation risk update, or call script derived from legal material. The skill preserves legal nuance, uncertainty, and risk rather than oversimplifying — it makes advice usable, not just simpler.

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).