Explore

Edit mathematically, empirically, or technically dense papers for readers outside the author’s specialty, including empirical legal scholarship, law-and-economics models, and legal-technology research. Clarifies terminology, antecedents, study design, and claim–statistic relationships while checking equations, numbers, quotations, and citations against the source. Use to clarify exposition or de-jargonize a technical draft; not to rewrite briefs or doctrinal arguments. Produces an edited draft and audit memo. Full integrity checks and original-format rendering require suitable extraction, code execution, and document tools; otherwise provides proposed edits with verification limits disclosed.

Critically assess and improve a legal scholarly thesis, article idea, student note, seminar-paper claim, or research agenda using Eugene Volokh's novelty, nonobviousness, utility, and soundness framework, connector-aware research, claim-specific tests, and a sustainable adversarial pass. Produces a self-contained green-, yellow-, or red-light report. Use when a law professor or law student asks whether a claim is viable, novel, publishable, preempted, useful, worth pursuing, or better than competing topics; or wants a thesis stress-tested, narrowed, repaired, or compared. No connector is required: use connected legal and scholarly research when available, public sources otherwise, and disclose any no-research fallback.

Condense a scholarly legal article by moving nonessential detail from the body into substantive footnotes while preserving every word and keeping the argument self-sufficient. Handles Markdown and Word (.docx), integrates moved material with existing notes, measures a user-specified relegation fraction (25% by default), and delivers a move-by-move memo. Use when asked to "push detail into footnotes," "relegate to footnotes," "footnote the caveats," "move the digressions down," or tighten a dense draft without deleting content. Word output requires file access plus document-conversion and rendering support; when those capabilities are unavailable, deliver Markdown and the memo or ask for a convertible source.

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.

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.

Gratuit et open source, LibreJustice est le seul connecteur dont vous aurez besoin pour le droit français : ~3,8 millions de décisions et ~3,7 millions d'articles dans la même base, reliés article par article. Jurisprudence administrative et judiciaire, Conseil constitutionnel, CEDH, CJUE, CNDA (seulement les décisions publiques). Les textes se lisent tels qu'en vigueur à n'importe quelle date, avec l'historique de leurs versions : codes et lois, Journal officiel, conventions collectives, circulaires, BOFiP, droit de l'UE, traités, codes étrangers de 59 pays. Le graphe des citations se remonte dans les deux sens : d'une décision vers les articles qu'elle cite, d'un article vers les décisions qui le citent. Recherche en langage naturel, hybride lexicale et sémantique. Connexion OAuth sans clé à coller, corpus mis à jour quotidiennement.

Gratuit et open source, le plugin LibreJustice installe d'un coup le connecteur et les deux compétences qui l'encadrent : ~3,8 millions de décisions françaises et européennes et ~3,7 millions d'articles, dans la même base, reliés article par article. La compétence recherche-jurisprudence fait lire chaque décision en texte intégral avant de la citer, verbatim et liée à sa source, et affiche le sort de la décision sur recours ; recherche-normes sert la version du texte valide à la date du litige, pas celle d'aujourd'hui. Jurisprudence administrative et judiciaire, Conseil constitutionnel, CEDH, CJUE, CNDA (seulement les décisions publiques) ; codes et lois, Journal officiel, conventions collectives, circulaires, BOFiP, droit de l'Union, traités, codes étrangers de 59 pays. Une commande dans Claude Code ou Codex, connexion OAuth sans clé à coller, corpus resynchronisé quotidiennement.

Gratuit et open source, cette compétence trouve et cite le texte applicable à la date qui compte, sur les ~3,7 millions d'articles de LibreJustice. La date d'abord, le texte ensuite : la version en vigueur aujourd'hui est la mauvaise pour la plupart des contentieux, donc elle identifie la date pertinente, sert la version valide à cette date et dit laquelle elle cite. Aucune disposition n'est citée de mémoire, chaque article est lié à sa page. Codes et lois français, droit de l'Union, traités et accords bilatéraux, codes de 59 pays étrangers, conventions collectives, BOFiP, circulaires. Le connecteur LibreJustice est nécessaire ; la compétence guide son installation.

Gratuit et open source, cette compétence fait chercher, vérifier et citer la jurisprudence française et européenne à votre assistant, sur les ~3,8 millions de décisions de LibreJustice. Sa règle première : aucune décision n'entre dans la réponse sans avoir été lue en texte intégral, jamais sur la foi d'un résumé. Les citations sont verbatim et tracées à leur source, chaque décision nommée est un lien, et le sort de la décision sur recours est affiché avant qu'elle soit invoquée comme autorité. Cour de cassation, Conseil d'État, cours d'appel, tribunaux judiciaires et administratifs, Conseil constitutionnel, CNIL, CEDH, CJUE et CNDA (seulement les décisions publiques). Le connecteur LibreJustice est nécessaire ; la compétence guide son installation.

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.

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."

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.

Build a client instruction schedule: a plain-English, Scott Schedule-style Word table that gathers a struggling client's evidence and instructions issue by issue, with a one-page covering note. Output is always a .docx draft for solicitor review.

Skill do analizy i tworzenia umów według polskiego prawa, ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem umów B2B, IP i IT (body leasing, NDA, wdrożenia, SaaS, przeniesienie praw autorskich, ugody). Powstał w Kancelarii Radców Prawnych Żurawska Piotrowski i Wspólnicy (ktzr.pl). Używaj zawsze gdy użytkownik prosi o przeanalizowanie polskiej umowy, audyt ryzyk umownych, wygenerowanie nowej umowy w stylu KTZR, dodanie/edycję klauzuli, sprawdzenie spójności umowy lub gdy wkleja/załącza polski dokument umowny do oceny. Stosuj również gdy pojawia się pojęcie "Złote Reguły KTZR", "essentialia negotii", "baza klauzul KTZR" lub gdy użytkownik wspomina o kancelarii KTZR / swojej kancelarii.

EU AI Act governance, risk classification, DPIA workflows, and compliance automation for European in-house legal and compliance teams. Built for DACH enterprises. Extends Anthropic's legal plugin with deep EU regulatory expertise.

CoCounsel Legal delivers comprehensive Westlaw Deep Research reports with inline, linked citations to Westlaw and Practical Law sources.

Watches regulatory feeds, diffs new rules against your policy library, tracks comment deadlines and open gaps, and writes the digest your team reads Monday morning.

Reviews product launches against your risk calibration, answers 'is this a problem?' questions in minutes, checks marketing copy for claims that need substantiation, and flags upcoming launches that need legal eyes before anyone asks.