Explore

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.

Performs a legal compliance audit for a Moroccan e-commerce website, focused on personal data protection (Law 09-08) and consumer contract disclosures/obligations (Law 31-08). Use this skill when a user asks to audit, check, or assess the legal compliance of an e-commerce website operating in Morocco — presence and validity of Terms & Conditions, privacy policy, CNDP declaration, mandatory disclosures, right of withdrawal, consent banner. Out of scope: compliance for other countries, Meta/Google advertising compliance (covered by another skill), definitive legal advice (results are a starting point for professional review, not legal advice).

Runs a server-enforced STRIDE threat model and LINDDUN privacy threat model over a system described in prose, screens named dependencies against live CVE/KEV/EPSS data, and builds a cited screen of which EU security obligations (GDPR, NIS2, CRA, AI Act) may apply and which need determination - every regulatory statement fetched from officially published text through the Ansvar Gateway connector at answer time, with scope, role, and application-date limits stated. Never answered from model memory; never a compliance verdict.

One security incident can trigger several EU reporting regimes at once. This skill screens NIS2, GDPR, DORA, and the Cyber Resilience Act for each involved legal entity, applies the served trigger tests, checks each duty was actually in force for the incident, resolves the receiving authority per regime and member state from served national law (e.g. Dutch and German transpositions), and produces a deadline table in which every duty, authority, and deadline is quoted and cited from official publisher text. Requires the free Ansvar Gateway MCP connector; never answers from model memory - a connector failure is never converted into "no duty exists".

Cited EU Cyber Resilience Act assessment for a product with digital elements: scope, product classification, role-specific vulnerability-handling duties, and Article 14 reporting - joined with live CVE / CISA-KEV / EPSS vulnerability intelligence, and a NIS2 / GDPR / DORA entity-level screen. Requires the free Ansvar Gateway MCP connector; every legal claim is fetched from official publisher text at answer time and cited, never answered from model memory.

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 MCP server that exposes the `international-criminal-tribunals-skills` suite to any 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.

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.

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.

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.

Verification-first methodology for the Special Panels for Serious Crimes of the Dili District Court (UNTAET, 2000–2006). Citations are verified against JSMP, the UN archives and legal-tools.org. Covers the Los Palos case, the Serious Crimes Unit caseload (391 indicted; about 88 tried) and the SPSC-vs-Jakarta distinction. Research aid, not legal advice.

“Verification-first” methodology for the Extraordinary African Chambers, covering the Hissène Habré trial in Dakar. Every citation is verified against forumchambresafricaines.org and legal-tools.org. Covers the judgment of May 30, 2016, the appeal judgment of April 27, 2017, reparations of CFAF 82.290 billion for 7,396 victims, and universal jurisdiction. Research aid, not legal advice.

“Verification-first” methodology for the Special Criminal Court of the Central African Republic, a hybrid court seated in Bangui. Every citation is verified against JusticeInfo, FIDH, HRW, and legal-tools.org; the official sites often return a 403 error. Covers the Paoua case, the word “notamment” in Article 3, and complementarity with the ICC. Research aid, not legal advice.

Verification-first methodology for the Special Court for Sierra Leone and its Residual Special Court. Citations are verified against rscsl.org and legal-tools.org. Covers Taylor, the AFRC/CDF/RUF cases, the child-soldier and forced-marriage holdings, the head-of-State immunity decision, and the fixed-term (no life) penalty regime. Research aid, not legal advice.

Verification-first methodology for the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor's Office (The Hague, applying Kosovo law). Citations are verified against scp-ks.org before use; appeal registry numbers are cited only once confirmed. Covers Thaçi et al., Mustafa, Pjetër Shala and Gucati & Haradinaj. Research aid, not legal advice.

Verification-first methodology for the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. Citations are verified against the STL legacy archive and legal-tools.org. Covers the Ayyash et al. case, the two contempt cases (STL-14-05 New TV/Al-Khayat and STL-14-06 Akhbar Beirut/Al-Amin), and the 2011 terrorism decision. Research aid, not legal advice.

Verification-first methodology for the post-WWII tribunals: the IMT at Nuremberg, the twelve Nuremberg Military Tribunals, and the IMTFE at Tokyo. Citations are verified against the official records (Blue/Green Series, Pritchard-Zaide) and the digital archives (Avalon, Harvard NTP, UVA IMTFE). Guards the four classic traps (IMT vs NMT; Nuremberg vs Tokyo; Charter article numbers; majority judgment vs separate opinions, e.g. the Pal dissent). Research aid, not legal advice.

Verification-first methodology for the ICTY, the ICTR and the Residual Mechanism (IRMCT). Citations are verified against irmct.org, the Case Law and Unified Court Records databases, and legal-tools.org. Handles the IT/ICTR to MICT case-number transition (Karadžić, Mladić) and the protective-measures rule. Research aid, not legal advice.

Verification-first methodology for the ECCC (Khmer Rouge Tribunal). Every citation is verified against eccc.gov.kh, the ECCC archive or legal-tools.org. Covers Case File numbering, the 001/002/002-01/002-02 structure, the genocide findings against the Cham and the Vietnamese, and the Internal Rules revision discipline. Research aid, not legal advice.

Run an attorney-facing knockout/availability trademark search across the United States and Canada. Use whenever a user (founder, client, or attorney) asks whether a brand, mark, name, logo, slogan, or product name is "available," "free to use," "clearable," or "already taken" — or asks Claude to "search the trademark register," "check USPTO," "check CIPO," "do a knockout search," "clearance search," "availability search," or "see if [mark] is trademarked." Trigger even when the user phrases it casually ("can I call my company X?", "is this name taken?"). Covers federal USPTO (TESS/TSDR), federal Canada (CIPO), common-law/web/state, and WIPO Madrid international. Output is a knockout availability memo with green/yellow/red verdict for attorney review. Includes professional-responsibility gating (AI-use disclosure, conflict check, scope confirmation) before substantive analysis. Not legal advice — produces work product for attorney sign-off.

Research, drafting, and analysis involving the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute system). Enforces a verification-first methodology — every case-law, decision, filing, warrant, and statement citation is verified against an authoritative primary source (icc-cpi.int, legal-tools.org) in the current conversation before it appears in an output. Foundational texts (Rome Statute, Elements of Crimes, RPE, Regulations of the Court) may be cited from project knowledge when present. Use whenever the user is working with ICC case law, OTP statements, ASP documents, or ICC procedure.

Analyses contracts for risk across five critical clauses (Limitation of Liability, Indemnities, IP Ownership, Data Protection, Termination). Built for founders with no legal background. Flags red flags, explains risks in plain language, and provides negotiation guidance.

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.