Explorar

Generate a one-page pre-meeting brief from local matter files. Use before a client meeting, deposition, mediation session, settlement conference, or court appearance — when you need a fast, structured summary of where the matter stands and what you need to accomplish.

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.

Verifies UK case-law citations, pinpoint references and quotations against the official public register — The National Archives' Find Case Law — and statutory references against legislation.gov.uk, before a document that cites them is relied on, served or filed. Every check returns a graded verdict: VERIFIED, MISMATCH (the citation resolves to a different case — the classic AI miscitation), NOT ON REGISTER, OUTSIDE COVERAGE (the register cannot answer — absence proves nothing), or UNCHECKABLE (a law-report citation). The grading exists because there are two ways to get this wrong: citing a case that does not exist, and accusing a real case of not existing. Use when asked to check citations, verify a case exists, confirm a quotation is verbatim, check a pinpoint paragraph, audit a draft's authorities, screen a document for hallucinated cases, or check a statutory provision is in force. Not a substitute for reading the judgment: existence is not authority.

Searches the domestic courts of 122 jurisdictions — 153 databases, 49 automated — for extradition and arrest-warrant surrender decisions, each in its own language and vocabulary. Answers the question no commercial database does: how are OTHER executing states treating this requesting state, or this ground? Searching by requesting state localises its name per jurisdiction (AE becomes 'Emiratele Arabe Unite' in Romania, 'Emirati Arabi Uniti' in Italy), so the sweep finds what those courts actually wrote. Every hit passes a relevance gate; every search leaves a dated report, so the research is reconstructable months later. Use when asked what foreign courts have said about surrender to a given state, whether any European court has refused extradition on prison conditions, assurances or Article 3, for comparative extradition research, or to build a foreign-authority section of an extradition argument. Not for domestic case law of the user's own jurisdiction, and never a substitute for reading the judgment.

Audit Terms of Service, user agreements, and privacy policies for consumer risks, producing a structured report that flags unfair clauses, data traps, and liability issues. Trigger when a user asks to review, audit, or analyze a ToS, privacy policy, or user agreement, or mentions specific concerns like auto-renewal or data authorization.

Search The Chancery Lane Project's knowledge graph of climate-related contract clauses, glossary terms, and guides. Use `search` for relevance-ranked results across all content. Use `entity_lookup` when you have a specific concept or entity name (e.g. 'scope 3 emissions') and want to find the clauses and terms that mention it. To browse content by taxonomy categories (sector, practice area, application, jurisdiction, etc.) rather than by relevance, call `taxonomy_facets` first to discover the available facet names and value slugs, then call `taxonomy_content` with the slugs you want.

Arbitrator research tool for investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS), built for arbitration counsel. It produces reliable, structured, and thorough insights into arbitrators' experience, and can identify, evaluate, and rank the suitability of arbitrators for specific disputes. The tool flags arbitrator decisions and publications that bear on the issues in the dispute, checks an arbitrator's caseload, and suggests additional issues for counsel's consideration prior to nomination. Try asking about specific arbitrators, or describe your dispute and ask for a shortlist of suitable arbitrator candidates. Outputs are grounded in the UNCTAD ISDS Navigator dataset, targeted live lookups (ICSID), and additional verification from primary sources. For best functionality, also download the isds-research skill.

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.

Professional PDF solution. Create PDFs using HTML+Paged.js (academic papers, reports, documents). Process existing PDFs using Python (read, extract, merge, split, fill forms). Supports KaTeX math formulas, Mermaid diagrams, three-line tables, citations, and other academic elements. Also use this skill when user explicitly requests LaTeX (.tex) or native LaTeX compilation.

Builds compliance checklists for business scenarios involving GDPR, PIPL, or advertising/data laws. Outputs a structured checklist with check items, legal basis, risk levels, and actionable recommendations. Triggered by requests like \"run a compliance check,\" \"GDPR/PIPL compliance,\" \"pre-launch review,\" \"privacy impact assessment (PIA/DPIA),\" or asking if a feature is compliant.

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.

Find and quote statutory and regulatory law with the LibreJustice MCP tools — French codes at any date, EU law, treaties and bilateral accords, foreign codes (59 countries), collective agreements, BOFiP, circulaires. Use whenever the user asks what a text says or said at a given date, which version or which text applies to a situation, needs the exact wording of a provision for a brief, or works with foreign or international law in French litigation, even if they never mention LibreJustice.

Search and cite French case law and statutes with the LibreJustice MCP tools. Use whenever the user asks about French or European court decisions (Cour de cassation, Conseil d'État, cours d'appel, TJ/TA, CNDA, Conseil constitutionnel, CNIL, CEDH, CJUE), needs authorities for a brief, requête, référé or consultation, wants to check how courts rule on an issue, needs counts of decisions on a point, or asks what a code article says at a given date, even if they never mention LibreJustice.

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.

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.

Transforms reading-oriented prose into listening-optimized text for flat, neutral vocal delivery — TTS, podcasts, audiobooks, CLE audio. Carries a legal layer: case citations, section symbols, subsection lettering, Latin terms and footnotes are unspeakable as written, so a brief, opinion, statute, contract or memo needs them expanded, restructured or stripped before it can be listened to — and quoted authority is never rewritten. Use when converting written content for audio, preparing oral argument by ear, producing CLE or client-facing audio, or making a document listenable on a commute. Triggers on "make this listenable," "convert for audio," "optimize for reading aloud," "prepare for TTS," "make an audio version," "podcast script," "read this aloud." Supports English, French, Spanish, Italian, German and Portuguese; outputs plain text, ElevenLabs audio tags, or SSML for Amazon Polly, Google or Azure.

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."

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.