Lawvable@Awesome Legal Skills

Arbitrator research tool for investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS). The tool can summarize arbitrators' experience, with deliverables grounded in primary documents; it can also help find arbitrators based on the issues faced in a particular case. Use when the user asks about an arbitrator ("tell me about arbitrator X", "X, Y and Z"), wants help choosing or shortlisting arbitrators for a case, or asks about appointments, dissents, issue track records (e.g. FET, expropriation), challenge risk, double-hatting, or tribunal composition. Profiles are grounded in the UNCTAD ISDS Navigator dataset plus targeted live lookups (ICSID); deep verification retrieves the actual decisions. Sibling of isds-research.

Builds a high-fidelity interactive legal assessment as a single self-contained HTML artifact. Output includes a live countdown timer, contract review tasks with hover-annotated problem clauses, candidate answer textareas, model answers hidden behind reveal blocks, scenario-based legal memo tasks, strategy and function-building questions, and a pre-submission checklist that encodes the marking criteria. Use when the user needs to (1) assess a legal candidate with a realistic timed exercise, (2) train or onboard junior lawyers using problem sets rather than doctrine, (3) help a candidate prepare for a real take-home assessment they are facing, (4) build educational materials for law students, in-house teams, or compliance training, or (5) produce scenario-based training modules on specific legal topics. Triggers on "legal test", "take-home", "mock exam", "contract redline exercise", "candidate assessment", "legal training exercise", "practice test", or similar phrasing even when informal.

Orientação LGPD para operações de tratamento no Brasil. Cobre bases legais (Art. 7º e Art. 11), RIPD, incidentes (Arts. 48-49), direitos dos titulares (Art. 18) e transferências internacionais. Triggers: LGPD, RIPD, ANPD, proteção de dados, dados pessoais, consentimento, encarregado, DPO Brasil, incidente de dados, legítimo interesse.

Pre-flight privilege and work-product check for legal AI prompts. Use when the user is about to send legal content to a third-party AI surface (ChatGPT, Claude.ai, Copilot, Gemini, etc.) and wants to know whether the prompt risks blowing attorney-client privilege or work-product protection. Returns a SAFE/CAUTION/STOP band with cited factors, a discovery-impact line, and a redacted-safe rewrite.

Post-hoc verification and trust audit of AI-generated factual and interpretive claims. Classifies claims by type and salience, routes them to domain-appropriate sources, scores trustworthiness on a tiered scale with an Interpolated verdict for plausible-but-unsupported detail, and assesses rhetorical fairness on interpretive claims. Designed for clinical-negligence and healthcare-law practice in England and Wales, with general applicability beyond.

Contract Review for Tech and general contract. Smart redflagging feature to show the problems.

When your bar comes asking "show me how you billed AI-assisted work" — and ABA 512, Florida 24-1, California, New York, and DC all have opinions out — you need an artifact that survives review. billable-time produces it. From your Claude Code session logs, it drafts reviewable time entries plus a printable HTML audit packet with: SHA-256 chain of evidence (source files + matter.yml + active disclosure pack + verifiable artifact self-hash), attorney identity and signature block, a bar-opinion disclosure pack with starter language for five jurisdictions, and content-aware deterministic narratives derived from filename and tool shape — never from prompt text by default. The tool refuses to bill on its own. --strict mode refuses to ship the artifact if any audit invariant fails (broad routes, missing attorney, missing/unverified disclosure). Comes as a Node CLI and a self-contained browser version (no backend; JSONL never leaves the page). 15 invariant tests verify the contract. AGPL-3.0.

Practitioner skill for advising on 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.

Prepare a lawyer for an adversarial proceeding the way Neal Katyal's "Harvey" prepared him for the SCOTUS tariffs argument: profile the tribunal from their prior opinions and questions, predict the specific questions you will face, map narrow "escape routes" each judge can walk through without abandoning prior commitments, and spar adversarially until only the strongest answers survive. The model is the sparring partner. The human still wins the case. Use when: preparing for oral argument, appellate argument, motion hearing, evidentiary hearing, deposition (taking or defending), arbitration, mediation, or any proceeding where a known decision-maker will fire questions at you in real time. Also useful for stress-testing a brief before filing. Proactively suggest when: the user mentions an upcoming hearing/argument with named judges or arbitrators, drafts a brief and wants it pressure-tested, asks "what will Justice X / Judge Y ask me," or talks about preparing for a specific bench.

Expert PCI DSS compliance advisor covering PCI DSS v4.0.1 (current) and v4.0. Use this skill whenever a user asks about PCI DSS, payment card security, cardholder data protection, CDE scoping, SAQ types (A, A-EP, B, B-IP, C, C-VT, P2PE, D), ROC, AOC, QSA assessments, ASV scans, merchant levels, service provider levels, network segmentation, penetration testing, tokenisation, encryption of PAN data, or any of the 12 PCI DSS requirements. Also trigger for questions like "are we PCI compliant?", "how do I scope my CDE?", "which SAQ applies to us?", "what changed in PCI DSS v4.0?", "how do I prepare for a QSA audit?", or any request involving payment data security, cardholder data environment, or PCI certification readiness.

Use when an application or system — including one built quickly with AI coding agents — needs a security review with regulatory grounding: a STRIDE threat model, a LINDDUN privacy threat model, a dependency exposure screen against live CVE / CISA-KEV / EPSS data, or a selected, non-exhaustive screen of which EU security obligations (GDPR, NIS2, Cyber Resilience Act, AI Act) may apply and which need determination. Orchestrates the server-enforced threat-modeling workflows of the Ansvar Gateway MCP connector and grounds every regulatory statement in officially published text fetched at answer time — scope, role, and application-date limits stated, never a compliance verdict. Never simulates a workflow and never answers legal questions from model memory.

Build dependency network and critical path from a matter plan. Produce an interactive Gantt, flag near-critical tasks, and run what-if cascade scenarios when delays occur — showing programme impact and drafting communications. Produces filtered workstream or jurisdiction views for local counsel. Trigger on: 'build a timeline', 'Gantt chart', 'critical path', 'what if X is delayed', 'what moves if', 'schedule impact', 'how does this affect the programme', 'when do we finish', 'can we still close on time', 'if we miss this deadline', 'run a what-if', 'visualise the plan', 'Germany timeline', 'what does the Employment workstream look like', 'timeline for local counsel', 'just show me the [workstream] tasks'.

Expert TSA cybersecurity compliance advisor for critical infrastructure owners and operators. Use this skill whenever a user asks about TSA Security Directives for pipelines, freight railroads, passenger rail, public transit, or bus operators; the TSA Cyber Risk Management Program (CRMP); Cybersecurity Implementation Plan (CIP); Cybersecurity Operational Implementation Plan (COIP); Cybersecurity Assessment Plan (CAP); incident reporting to CISA; designation of a Cybersecurity Coordinator; Critical Cyber Systems (CCS); OT/IT network segmentation; the TSA November 2024 NPRM; or any directive in the SD Pipeline-2021 series, SD 1580-21-01 (freight rail), or SD 1582-21-01 (public transit/passenger rail). Also trigger for questions like "are we covered by TSA directives?", "what does the TSA require for pipeline cybersecurity?", "how do I build a CIP?", "what must I report to CISA?", or any request involving transportation critical infrastructure cybersecurity compliance.

Convert agreed scope into a structured matter plan — phases, workstreams, milestones, dependencies, owner assignments, and matter setup decisions. Use when planning a new matter, running a kickoff, building a workstream plan, structuring phases, setting up task codes, or producing a plan to drive status reporting. Trigger on: 'build a plan', 'matter plan', 'project plan', 'what are the phases', 'workstream plan', 'how do we sequence this', 'who owns what', 'task codes', 'matter setup', 'workstream plan', 'matter plan', 'rolling wave', 'plan the next phase', 'what comes first', 'kickoff agenda'.

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.

Risk-based vendor assessment framework for IT service providers, technology vendors, and third-party partners under DORA, NIS2, GDPR. Provides three-phase process (Initial Screening / Detailed Assessment / Final Evaluation), six-dimension risk scoring (Financial/Operational/Compliance/Security/Reputational/Strategic) with weighted matrices, full DORA Art. 28-30 contractual checklist, NIS2 Art. 21(2) security measures enumeration, GDPR Art. 28 documentation checks, red flags per dimension, trigger-based review criteria, and document templates. Use when: (1) Evaluating new vendors or technology providers, (2) Conducting critical ICT third-party due diligence under DORA, (3) Performing supply chain security assessment under NIS2, (4) Creating vendor onboarding documentation, (5) Establishing ongoing vendor monitoring, (6) Assessing concentration risk, or (7) Generating executive vendor risk reports.

Use this skill when the user wants an AI governance, legal-risk, privacy, compliance, procurement, or vendor-risk review of an internal AI use case, an AI product feature, an LLM workflow, or a third-party AI vendor. The skill asks intake and clarifying questions first when facts or evidence are missing, identifies required documentation and missing evidence, maps the use case to AI governance frameworks and applicable legal domains, and produces a preliminary or final governance review with scorecards, findings, owners, remediation actions, and follow-up questions.

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."

Complete prep for all three scored components of the California Bar Exam: the five written ESSAYS (13 subjects — Business Associations, Civil Procedure, Community Property, Constitutional Law, Contracts, Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence, Professional Responsibility, Real Property, Remedies, Torts, Trusts, Wills & Succession), the PERFORMANCE TEST, and the multiple-choice MBE (7 subjects). Trigger whenever someone is studying for the California bar (or the MBE) and says things like: "give me the rule for [issue]", "big issues in [subject]", "drill/quiz me on [topic]", "MBE questions on [subject]", "teach me [doctrine]", "build an attack outline", "grade my essay", "memorizable paragraph for [issue]", "performance test approach", or "make a study plan" — or names any tested essay/MBE subject in a study, memorization, drilling, or practice-question context. Also trigger when a student uploads a practice essay, PT, or question set to be graded or turned into rule blocks. When in doubt during bar prep, trigger.

GDPR Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) guidance under Article 35 GDPR, EDPB Guidelines WP 248 rev.01, EDPB Opinion 28/2024 (AI), and national SA blacklists/whitelists. Triggers: "DPIA", "DSFA", "Datenschutz-Folgenabschätzung", "impact assessment", "Art. 35", "do I need a DPIA", descriptions of new high-risk processing (profiling, AI, biometrics, large-scale monitoring, special category data), Art. 36 prior consultation questions, national blacklist/whitelist queries.

Research a US employment law topic across federal, state, and city jurisdictions and produce structured research notes with proper source attribution. Use this skill any time the user asks about US employment laws, regulations, or pending legislation - from a single jurisdiction question to a 50-state survey. Triggers include phrases like "research [employment law topic]", "what are the laws on [employment topic]", "state-by-state [employment topic]", "help me understand [topic] across the US", or any prompt that asks for a legal landscape overview before another deliverable. Always run this BEFORE the employment-law-dashboard skill if a dashboard is the eventual output. Output is a structured research note that distinguishes primary sources (statutes, regs, agency guidance) from secondary sources (law firm alerts, tracker orgs).

Expert HIPAA compliance assistant for healthcare and software contexts. Use this skill whenever the user mentions HIPAA, PHI (Protected Health Information), ePHI, covered entities, business associates, healthcare data privacy, medical records, health information security, BAA (Business Associate Agreements), or any compliance review involving patient data. Also trigger for requests to draft privacy notices, HIPAA policies, consent forms, security risk assessments, or breach notification letters. Use for developers building healthcare software who need technical safeguard guidance (encryption, access controls, audit logs), compliance officers reviewing documents or procedures, and anyone asking "is this HIPAA compliant?" or "what does HIPAA require for X?". When in doubt about whether a healthcare or data privacy question falls under this skill — use it.

Turn a lawyer's bounded expertise, workflow, review standard, or legal judgment pattern into a safe, inspectable legal AI skill. Use when a user provides legal memos, comments, checklists, negotiation notes, review habits, compliance playbooks, or professional feedback and wants a reusable Lawve-style skill. Do not impersonate the lawyer or claim to reproduce a person; distill only authorized, source-bounded capability.

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.

Audits the transition from legal AI output to reliance, recommendation, execution, or real-world commitment. Use it before an AI-generated analysis, memo, contract review, compliance finding, or workflow output is acted upon to check whether authority, evidence, mandate, uncertainty, procedure, and review conditions remain sufficient.

Recherche, cartographie et analyse des thèses de doctorat françaises via theses.fr (API ABES) et TEL (HAL). Spécialisée droit avec filtrage par sous-disciplines juridiques. Ouverte sur d'autres domaines universitaires. Capacités : (1) recherche multi-critères — sujet, directeur, jury, établissement, école doctorale, période, statut soutenue/en préparation, discipline ; (2) cartographie académique — qui dirige sur quel sujet, qui siège dans quels jurys, réseaux de co-direction, écoles doctorales productives ; (3) analyses temporelles — évolution d'un sujet, détection de saturation, calendrier des soutenances à venir ; (4) filtrage sous-discipline juridique — droit privé, public, social, affaires, international, etc. Déclencher dès que l'utilisateur mentionne thèse, doctorat, directeur de thèse, jury de thèse, école doctorale, soutenance, doctorant, ou demande une analyse d'écosystème doctoral. Pour articles ou ouvrages de doctrine, utiliser plutôt recherche-doctrine.

RFP creation, distribution, evaluation, and shortlisting for in-house legal teams selecting outside counsel. Draft a new legal services RFP from scratch, evaluate firm responses against weighted criteria, produce a shortlist recommendation with selection rationale for GC sign-off, or design the end-to-end RFP process from scratch. Trigger on: 'draft an RFP', 'run an RFP process', 'evaluate firm responses', 'score the RFP submissions', 'which firms should we shortlist', 'selection recommendation', 'how do we run a panel RFP', 'RFP for legal services', 'pitch process', 'firm selection process', 'compare the proposals', 'we're reviewing our panel', 'panel refresh RFP', 'we need to go to market', 'request for proposal', 'evaluate the pitches', 'which firm won the RFP', 'write a legal RFP', 'RFP evaluation criteria', 'design the RFP process', 'how do we weight the criteria'.

Operational billing execution for legal matters. Monthly bill prep and billing instructions, LC invoice review and disbursement treatment, client billing query responses, cashflow modelling (LC payment obligations vs client receipts), and leverage and burn analysis (staffing mix, predicted total cost, margin trajectory). Trigger on: 'prepare the bill', 'billing instruction', 'end of month billing', 'LC invoice', 'local counsel invoice', 'pass through as disbursement', 'client querying the invoice', 'billing dispute', 'cashflow gap', 'when will we get paid', 'LC payment due', 'leverage analysis', 'staffing mix', 'predicted total cost', 'burn rate by grade', 'are we on track', 'what will this matter cost'.

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.

Use this skill when asked about Icelandic employment law, labour relations, workplace rights, or collective agreements. Triggers on questions about hiring, termination, working conditions, parental leave, trade unions, collective bargaining, workplace safety, or the Félagsdómur labour court in Iceland.

Helps a lawyer build and use a personalized Legal Guidance Vault — a local folder of structured, privilege-marked entries capturing legal guidance they've given, searchable later by topic, person, or product. Use this skill when the user says "set up my vault," "archive this meeting/email/thread/doc," "log the guidance I gave on [topic]," "save my notes from [meeting]," "what did I say about [topic]," "find the time I advised [person] on [topic]," or "search my vault for [topic]." Runs a setup interview to learn the user's tool stack (meeting notes, calendar, email, docs, messaging, vault location), then generates a customized vault prompt they can reuse in any future Claude session to start archiving and retrieving guidance.

End-to-end external local counsel lifecycle management for multi-jurisdiction legal matters. LC selection criteria and capability assessment, engagement setup and instruction design, performance monitoring and check-in cadence, scope enforcement, and relationship escalation. Use when selecting local counsel for a jurisdiction, designing LC instructions, managing the LC check-in rhythm, enforcing scope boundaries when LC signals overreach, or escalating a performance or relationship issue beyond the matter team. Trigger on: 'which LC should we use', 'LC instruction', 'brief the local counsel', 'LC hasn't responded', 'LC is going off scope', 'LC scope dispute', 'confirm scope with LC', 'LC check-in', 'LC is slow', 'monitor the LC network', 'LC engagement letter', 'LC selection', 'what should we tell the local counsel', 'LC onboarding', 'LC performance issue', 'LC relationship problem'.

Matter scoping across the full pre-execution arc — organise client data into a structured brief, capture the agreed baseline, or reconstruct scope mid-flight. Use when making sense of client information before a proposal, scoping a new matter, running a kickoff, defining scope, mapping stakeholders, or inheriting a matter mid-flight. Trigger on: 'make sense of this', 'structure this for the proposal', 'scope this matter', 'new matter', 'kickoff', 'what are we doing', 'who are the stakeholders', 'what does success look like', 'matter setup', 'intake', 'I've inherited this matter', 'organise this client data'.

NIS2 Compliance Navigator — scope classification, Art. 21 gap analysis (0-4 maturity scoring), and compliance roadmap under EU Directive 2022/2555 with deep German BSIG-neu coverage and profiles for Italy, France, Netherlands, Austria, Spain. Use when: (1) User mentions "NIS2", "NIS-2", "BSIG", "BSIG-neu", "NIS2UmsuCG", "Cyberbeveiligingswet", "Loi Résilience", "NISG", "decreto legislativo 138", (2) User asks if their organization falls under NIS2 or needs a cybersecurity compliance assessment, (3) User mentions essential/important entities, Annex I/II, BSI registration, § 30 BSIG, incident reporting, management body liability, supply chain security, (4) User wants a NIS2 gap analysis, readiness assessment, or compliance roadmap, (5) User asks about NIS2 fines, enforcement, or Nachweispflicht, (6) User asks about NIS2 in any EU Member State.

Performance scorecard design, post-matter feedback collection, QBR preparation, and firm comparison for in-house legal ops teams evaluating outside counsel. Design a scorecard framework calibrated to your team's maturity level. Produce post-matter feedback forms for supervising attorneys to complete at matter close. Prepare a QBR pack with agenda, data summary, and talking points for structured business reviews. Produce a side-by-side firm comparison for panel decision-making. Trigger on: 'design a performance scorecard', 'how do we evaluate our firms', 'build us a scorecard', 'post-matter feedback form', 'feedback at matter close', 'collect feedback on the firm', 'QBR', 'quarterly business review', 'prep for the firm review', 'what should I raise with the partner', 'compare the firms', 'which firm is performing better', 'rank our panel', 'firm performance data', 'scorecard framework', 'evaluate outside counsel', 'annual firm review', 'how are our firms performing'.

Modélise le raisonnement juridique d'un magistrat français pour l'analyse de dossiers civils. Utiliser ce skill pour analyser un litige et identifier les questions juridiques, construire un raisonnement juridique structuré (syllogisme), rédiger une motivation de jugement civil, rechercher la jurisprudence et les textes applicables via Judilibre et Légifrance, qualifier juridiquement des faits et actes, distinguer prétentions, moyens et arguments. Basé sur les Fiches méthodologiques de rédaction du jugement civil (ENM/Cour de cassation, 2023).

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.

Optimizes Claude for proofreading French texts, whether literary, technical, or professional. Grammar and spelling checks, detection of barbarisms, and stylistic suggestions.

Audits legal AI skills, prompts, workflows, MCP/tool instructions, and agent packages for prompt injection, malicious instructions, unsafe scripts, suspicious metadata, credential exposure, exfiltration paths, persistence mechanisms, and supply-chain risk. Use before installing, importing, publishing, promoting, modifying, or trusting third-party or generated AI skills and legal workflows. Do not use as a generic code review unless skill trust, workflow safety, prompt injection, or supply-chain hygiene is in scope.

Draft matter status reports from emails, call notes, and updates. Internal and client-facing formats, RAG logic, variance commentary, escalation flags. Use when asked to draft a status report, write a project update, summarise matter progress, prepare a client report, create a weekly or monthly update, convert emails into a status summary, or produce any kind of matter reporting. Also triggers when the user pastes email threads and asks what the status is, or needs to turn internal updates into client-facing reports.

Use when a lawyer, legal team, or client needs to assess AI agents that can act on someone's behalf: send messages, search, draft, file, pay, delete, connect to accounts, use tools, or rely on external data. Produces a practical delegation, oversight, accountability, and control audit for legal operations.

Matter budgeting and ongoing WIP/variance monitoring. Build phase-based fee estimates at matter setup, run bottom-up budgets by jurisdiction or workstream, calculate contingency, and structure AFA arrangements (fixed fee, capped fee, phased fixed fees). Ongoing monitoring: WIP tracking against budget, proportionality assessment (spend vs progress), variance commentary with root cause analysis, forecast-to-complete, realisation monitoring, write-off analysis. Trigger on: 'build a budget', 'fee estimate', 'what will this cost', 'WIP review', 'budget vs actual', 'how are we tracking against budget', 'we're over budget', 'realisation is poor', 'what's our ETC', 'budget for the German workstream', 'model the financial impact of this scope change', 'draft a fee adjustment', 'write-off analysis', 'how much contingency', 'AFA structure', 'fixed fee estimate', 'budget update', 'forecast to complete'.

Audits AI-assisted legal, compliance, governance, and institutional decisions before reliance to determine whether the responsible human or institution has enough access to the evidence, reasoning basis, uncertainty, authority, and review path to genuinely own the decision rather than merely approve, sign, or transmit it.

Ricerca giurisprudenziale rapida per ottenere un quadro di orientamento iniziale su un tema giuridico. Si attiva con "giurisprudenza-lampo [tema]", "cerca giurisprudenza su [tema]", "sentenze su [tema]", "pronunce su [tema]", "orientamento giurisprudenziale su [tema]", o qualsiasi variante che chieda di cercare sentenze, pronunce, massime, orientamenti giurisprudenziali o precedenti su un argomento giuridico. Usa questa skill anche quando l'utente dice "cosa dice la giurisprudenza su", "ci sono sentenze su", "precedenti su", "come si è espressa la Cassazione/il TAR/il Consiglio di Stato su".

Assistant académique pour enseignants-chercheurs en droit. Six tâches : (1) recherche juridique approfondie avec accent doctrinal, (2) relecture de documents avec vérification des références, commentaires Word, détection d'indices de plagiat/IA et cohérence argumentative, (3) création de sujets et corrigés d'exercices juridiques universitaires, (4) mise à jour de cours, ouvrages et documents juridiques, (5) création de cours avec support docx et PPTX, (6) préparation de fiches de TD. MCP : OpenLegi, Themia, LegalDataHunter. Déclencher pour toute demande liée à l'enseignement ou la recherche en droit : cours, TD, fiches de TD, examens, sujets, corrigés, relecture, mise à jour, recherche doctrinale. NE PAS déclencher pour les QCM (utiliser qcm-generator).

Panel structure design, firm selection criteria, right-sourcing analysis, and coverage gap assessment for in-house legal teams. Build panel frameworks from scratch or formalise existing informal arrangements. Define weighted selection criteria for firm evaluation. Run right-sourcing analysis (ABC tiering) to identify work sent to expensive providers that doesn't require that level of resource. Assess existing panels for practice area, geographic, and capability gaps. Trigger on: 'design our panel', 'how many firms do we need', 'panel structure', 'firm selection criteria', 'which firms should we use', 'right-sourcing', 'are we sending work to the right firms', 'panel gaps', 'too many firms', 'consolidate our panel', 'we need a firm for', 'preferred provider', 'panel tiers', 'do we need BigLaw for this', 'convergence', 'D&I panel targets', 'how do we choose firms'.

Recherche académique dans les bases de données de doctrine juridique française, européenne et internationale. Utiliser cette skill lorsque l'utilisateur demande de rechercher des articles de doctrine, des thèses, des ouvrages académiques, ou des travaux universitaires en droit — y compris en droit comparé. Sources principales : ISIDORE (agrégateur SHS du CNRS incluant Cairn.info, Persée, OpenEdition), HAL (archive ouverte française), OpenAlex (base ouverte mondiale 250M+ travaux), Semantic Scholar, CrossRef, Persée (OAI direct), et CORE. Couvre la doctrine juridique francophone ET internationale avec workflow bilingue intégré pour le droit comparé. Déclencher aussi pour : bibliographie commentée, état de l'art, revue de littérature juridique, recherche d'auteur, vérification de citation, analyse bibliométrique.

Ricerca giuridica su fonti italiane e UE: normativa, prassi e giurisprudenza in ogni materia (civile, penale, amministrativo, lavoro, tributario e specialistiche). Usare quando l'utente chiede di trovare, inquadrare o citare una norma ("cosa dice l'articolo...", "quale legge disciplina...", "è ancora in vigore...", "che estremi ha..."), cercare sentenze, massime o orientamenti, verificare la vigenza di una disposizione, verificare una citazione o l'esistenza di una pronuncia ("questa sentenza esiste?", "controlla le citazioni di questo atto"), cercare precedenti a favore e contro una tesi ("conformi e difformi", "sentenze pro e contro"), trovare un CCNL o le decisioni di ABF, ACF, AGCM o del Garante, creare un documento fondato su fonti (atti, pareri, clausole, contratti, memorie, diffide), o impostare una strategia processuale ("come imposto la causa", "come gestiresti questo caso", "conviene agire o transigere"), anche quando la fonte non è nominata. Non usare per domande non giuridiche.

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.

Writes a settlement letter on the right footing — and warns you when marking it 'without prejudice' won't actually keep it out of court. A genuine settlement letter is normally protected (the judge can't see it), but only if the substance is a real attempt to settle, and even then there are exceptions. The skill picks the correct footing — without prejudice (WP), without prejudice save as to costs (WPSATC / Calderbank), or open — drafts the finished letter, and surfaces the Unilever v Procter & Gamble exceptions that get WP material admitted despite the label, which a plain template won't flag. Built for juniors and in-house counsel drafting a settlement or Calderbank offer who need the footing right the first time. Use when the user asks to draft a WP letter, a Calderbank, a settlement letter, or wants to know whether material is likely protected from disclosure.

Archéologie des sources juridiques anciennes via Gallica (BNF, API stables, sans clé) : débats parlementaires du JO depuis 1871 (genèse des lois de la IIIe République), notes d'arrêt et doctrine d'origine dans les recueils Sirey et Dalloz, Bulletins civil et criminel anciens, Recueil Lebon, JO Lois et décrets 1881-2015, thèses et traités du XIXe-début XXe, Gazette des tribunaux, Bulletin de l'Inspection du travail. Déclencher dès que l'utilisateur cherche l'origine historique d'un texte, d'un concept ou d'une jurisprudence : « débats de la loi de 1884 », « note de Josserand », « que disait la doctrine en 1900 », « première apparition de la notion de… », « généalogie / histoire de l'article… », « arrêt ancien », « thèse d'avant-guerre », « Gallica », « BNF », ou toute recherche juridique antérieure aux bases modernes (Légifrance ne remonte pas avant l'époque contemporaine, Judilibre non plus). Déclencher aussi en COMPLÉMENT de travaux-preparatoires quand la loi étudiée est antérieure à 1958.

Use when a security incident, data breach, or actively exploited vulnerability raises the question "who must we notify, where, and by when?" Screens one incident across the EU reporting regimes — NIS2, GDPR, DORA, and the Cyber Resilience Act — determines which duties fire for each involved entity's roles, resolves the receiving authority per regime and member state from served national law, and produces a deadline table in which every duty, authority, and deadline is cited from official publisher text fetched live through the Ansvar Gateway MCP connector. Never answers from model memory.

RAID log methodology with decision extraction from emails and meeting notes. Use when asked to identify risks, log assumptions, track issues, extract decisions from correspondence, create or update a RAID log, escalate a risk to an issue, assess project risks, validate or challenge assumptions, or capture scope-relevant decisions. Also triggers when the user pastes email chains and asks what decisions were made, or needs to find buried decisions and untested assumptions in correspondence. Trigger on: 'risk report', 'RAID log', 'what are the risks', 'what decisions were made', 'update the risk register', 'what assumptions are we making', 'what could go wrong', 'flag any issues', 'extract decisions from these emails'.

Scope management for legal matters — baseline capture, in-flight change control, OOS documentation, and scope retrospective. Use when asked to review scoping assumptions, assess whether work is in or out of scope, draft a scope change notice, track scope changes, prepare an OOS justification, run an OOS report, prepare a scope call agenda, or review what changed on a matter. Trigger on: 'scope change', 'out of scope', 'OOS', 'scope creep', 'is this in scope', 'the client wants us to also', 'additional work', 'scope review', 'what changed from the original scope', 'we need to revisit the quote', 'the budget assumed', 'OOS report', 'scope call with the client', 'run a scope report'.

Systematic contract negotiation strategies for technology services agreements with German/EU law specificity. Provides three-position framework (provider-favorable, balanced, client-favorable), deal-size calibration (€100K to €10M+), five-tier objection handling with regulatory leverage (GDPR, DORA, NIS2, BGB), concession packaging, and position matrices for liability, IP, payment, SLA, data protection, and termination. Use when: (1) Developing negotiation strategies for SaaS, cloud, or managed services agreements, (2) Preparing position papers and fallback positions, (3) Responding to counterparty objections, (4) Structuring concession packages that protect core economics, (5) Calibrating tactics to deal size and leverage, or (6) Applying German contract law constraints (BGB §§ 305-310 AGB, § 309 Nr. 7 liability limits, § 288 statutory interest).

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.

Use when a user asks what the EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) means for their product, whether and when they must report a vulnerability or incident, or what a specific CVE triggers legally. Maps a product with digital elements to CRA scope, product classification, Annex I vulnerability-handling duties, and Article 14 reporting obligations — every legal claim cited from official regulation text fetched live through the Ansvar Gateway MCP connector, joined with live CVE / CISA-KEV / EPSS vulnerability intelligence from the same connector.

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. Part of the open-source "Skills for International Justice" library — methodology: github.com/jeannesulzer/international-criminal-tribunals-skills

Analyze any OFAC or OFSI enforcement action — by URL, pasted text, or uploaded document — and produce a structured root cause analysis as a formatted Excel (.xlsx) spreadsheet. Use this skill whenever a user names, links to, pastes, or uploads an OFAC or OFSI enforcement action and asks for any of the following: root cause analysis, compliance gaps, what went wrong, lessons learned, organizational self-assessment, or remediation planning. Also trigger when a user asks "analyze this enforcement action", "what were the root causes", "turn this into a checklist", or "how do I make sure this doesn't happen to us". Outputs a single-sheet .xlsx table with six columns: Root Cause | What Went Wrong | How It Went Wrong | What Could Have Stopped It | Is my organization immune to this? (Yes/No/Partial) | Notes.

Audits legal AI outputs, prompts, skills, workflows and MCP/tool instructions for fluent but unsupported reasoning, missing evidence, overconfidence, hidden assumptions, weak causal links and absent human-review gates.