Lawvable@Awesome Legal Skills

Assess compliance with the EU General-Purpose AI (GPAI) Code of Practice under the AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689). Use when asked to determine GPAI model provider obligations, assess Code of Practice compliance, evaluate transparency or copyright requirements for GPAI models, check systemic risk obligations, build a GPAI compliance roadmap, or prepare for AI Office requests. Covers all three Code chapters (Transparency, Copyright, Safety & Security), the 12 commitments and their measures, systemic risk classification (Article 51), provider obligations (Articles 53 and 55), open-source exemptions, enforcement timeline, Commission/AI Office supervision, and DACH-specific overlays such as BSI cybersecurity and works council implications. Triggers on phrases like "GPAI compliance", "Code of Practice assessment", "GPAI model obligations", "systemic risk evaluation", "AI Act transparency requirements", "GPAI copyright policy", "general-purpose AI compliance".

Draft or review a DPDPA-compliant consent notice under India's Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and DPDPA Rules, 2025. Provide basic details about your business and this skill handles the rest - building a notice tailored to your operations, with all required sections, granular consent boxes, and internal notes for your team. If you have an existing notice or privacy policy that needs to comply with DPDPA, this skill revises it too, flagging key gaps and changes made.

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.

Draft GDPR/DSGVO-compliant privacy notices as .docx for any EU/EEA jurisdiction and audience. Use when user asks to create a privacy policy/notice, mentions "Datenschutzerklärung", "politique de confidentialité", "privacy notice", needs Art. 13/14 disclosures, AI Act transparency, cookie policy, or notices for applicants ("Bewerber-Datenschutz"), employees ("Beschäftigten-Datenschutz"), B2B partners, or B2C customers. Covers DE (DSGVO+BDSG+TDDDG), FR (RGPD+LIL+LCEN), AT, IT, ES, NL, BE, IE, UK GDPR. Five notice types: Website/App, Applicant, Employee, Business Partner, B2C Customer.

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.

Audit de conformité RGPD complet d'un site internet. Réalise une observation systématique du site selon une checklist de 10 sections (mentions légales, hébergeur, formulaires, newsletter, politique de confidentialité, cookies et bandeau, mots de passe, trackers et mesure d'audience, sous-traitants et transferts hors UE, accessibilité du recueil des droits) plus une annexe 22 items reproduisant les exigences des articles 13 et 14 RGPD. Produit un rapport structuré avec niveau de conformité global, points bloquants (risque 3), points de vigilance (risque 2), recommandations prioritaires et notes techniques. Le skill est tool-agnostique : il fonctionne avec un outil de navigation automatique (Claude in Chrome, Cowork ou équivalent) ou en mode dégradé copier-coller. Triggers : "audit RGPD site", "audit site internet", "vérifie ce site", "scanne ce site", "audit conformité site", "audite la conformité de [URL]", "audit cookies site", "audit politique de confidentialité site".

Claude skill that turns Claude into a Connecticut-specific divorce planner — nine operating modes from pre-flight intake to post-judgment modification, modeled on Untangle.us's feature surface and grounded in C.G.S. Title 46b, Practice Book Chapter 25, and the 2026-08-01 CCSG schedule. Covers eligibility triage (nonadversarial under § 46b-44a vs standard), financial affidavit (JD-FM-6), child support (JD-FM-220 / CCSG-1 / 1A), alimony (§ 46b-82 fourteen factors), parenting plan (with GAL/AMC escalation under JD-FM-224), settlement agreement (JD-FM-172, TCJA-aware), filing packet (marshal 12-day rule, $360 + $50 fees, JD-FM-75 waiver), and post-judgment motion practice. Hard UPL gate: refuses non-CT, domestic violence (refers CTCADV 1-888-774-2900), hidden assets, courtroom advocacy. Heppner-aware: AI prompts are not privileged. First family-law skill in the Lawvable registry.

Assess obligations under Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 for connected products, related services, statutory B2B data sharing, unfair data-contract terms, exceptional-need B2G requests, data-processing-service switching, international governmental access, interoperability, smart contracts, enforcement, and non-EU representatives. Use for Data Act scope analysis, gap assessments, product and service design, request handling, contract review, cloud exit planning, or cross-regulation mapping.

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.

Mandatory external verification workflow for ALL non-trivial factual claims before presenting them as true. This skill MUST be used whenever Claude is asked to research any topic, answer factual questions, provide current information, draft documents containing factual claims, give legal advice or cite legal authority, discuss current events or public figures, provide technical or scientific information, state statistics or data points, or answer ANY question where the answer could have changed over time. Also trigger when the user asks Claude to 'check', 'verify', 'confirm', 'research', 'look up', or 'find out' anything, or when the user needs information that requires freshness, precision, or source accuracy. This skill overrides any default tendency to answer from memory. If a task involves stating facts, citing sources, or providing current information — use this skill.

Fast 15-25 minute triage for preliminary EU AI Act classification and compliance assessment. This skill should be used when the user asks to "do a quick AI Act assessment", "check if the AI Act applies to us", "run a preliminary classification", "do an AI Act triage", "quick check", "preliminary assessment", "Schnellprüfung", "Ersteinschätzung", or needs a fast initial assessment before committing to full analysis.

Act as experienced opposing counsel to attack, undermine, and expose weaknesses in a legal argument, submission, witness statement, or structured reasoning. Produces a six-part adversarial analysis: 1. A core theory of attack identifying the single most effective way to defeat the argument; 2. A reconstructed version of the opposing argument stripped of rhetoric to expose its fragility; 3. Primary lines of attack grouped by category (legal misstatement, evidential gaps, causation failures, internal inconsistency, over-reliance on assertion, procedural weakness); 4. An "if I were the judge" section showing how a sceptical tribunal would dismantle the argument; 5. Surgical strikes - 3 to 5 high-impact points ready for oral submissions; and 6. An analysis of what the argument is trying to hide. Written in formal, adversarial British English for a legally trained audience.

Determines whether a technology qualifies as an AI system under Art. 3(1) of the EU AI Act and classifies its risk tier (prohibited, high-risk, GPAI with systemic risk, limited risk, minimal risk). This skill should be used when the user asks to "classify an AI system under the AI Act", "determine the AI Act risk tier", "check if something is an AI system", "assess prohibited practices", "check high-risk classification", "determine Art. 6 exception applicability", or mentions "KI-Verordnung", "Risikoklassifizierung", Art. 5, Annex III, or GPAI systemic risk.

Apply elite legal writing techniques drawn from Justice Kagan, Boies & Olson, and other top advocates to any legal document — briefs, submissions, letters, opinions, memos, or persuasive correspondence. This skill covers both prose craft (clarity, examples, parallel construction, voice, quoting) and architectural strategy (argument sequencing, framing, openings, endings). Use this skill whenever the user asks you to draft, edit, or improve legal writing and wants it to be genuinely persuasive — not just correct. Also trigger when the user mentions 'make it more persuasive', 'sharpen this', 'strengthen the argument', 'rewrite this section', 'punch it up', 'legal writing', 'draft a brief', 'draft a submission', 'write like a top advocate', or asks you to improve the rhetoric, flow, or force of any legal document. This skill complements the larissa-legal-voice skill (which handles tone and personal voice) by adding the persuasive technique layer on top.

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 conceded facts, wrong-forum objections, 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 structured legal reasoning. Triggers on "attack this but only with points that hold", "no cheap shots", "what survives reply", "which points can I actually defend", "give me the version I can file", "double-pass adversarial review". Also use when an earlier adversarial review came back overlong or scattershot. Formal British English.

Outside counsel guidelines (OCGs) — drafting, review, gap analysis, and targeted updates for in-house legal teams. Build new OCGs calibrated to maturity level (light, standard, comprehensive), review existing OCGs against 15-component best practice framework, add or update specific sections (AI policy, AFA terms, D&I, rate review), and produce GC briefing notes for internal buy-in. Trigger on: 'draft billing guidelines', 'outside counsel guidelines', 'OCG', 'billing expectations', 'review our guidelines', 'update the AI clause', 'what should our billing guidelines cover', 'we don't have billing guidelines', 'firms aren't following our guidelines', 'rate review terms', 'GC briefing on billing guidelines', 'AFA policy', 'block billing', 'prohibited fees', 'staffing expectations for outside counsel'.

Maps the full set of legal obligations for the EU AI Act based on role + risk tier, producing an actionable compliance matrix with RACI assignments and implementation priorities. This skill should be used when the user asks to "map AI Act obligations", "check what we need to do under the AI Act", "create a compliance checklist", "check deployer obligations", "assess provider duties", or mentions Art. 26, Art. 16-17, AI literacy Art. 4, DPIA, fundamental rights assessment, or "Pflichtenkatalog" under the AI Act.

Determines the organization's role (provider, deployer, importer, distributor, or quasi-provider) and assesses Art. 25 quasi-provider risk of the EU AI Act. This skill should be used when the user asks to "determine AI Act roles", "check if we are provider or deployer", "assess quasi-provider status", "check Art. 25 substantial modification", "check value chain responsibilities", or mentions "Betreiber", "Anbieter", "wesentliche Veränderung", or finetuning implications under the AI Act.

Assesses a legal argument, submission, or piece of structured reasoning from the perspective of a judge reading it cold under time pressure. Produces a structured seven-part assessment: what the case appears to be about, immediate points of confusion, what feels strong, what feels weak, what is assumed but unproved, a provisional confidence level (low/medium/high), and what would be needed to persuade. The skill does not rewrite, improve, or attack the argument — it tells you how it actually lands on a sceptical, experienced reader with no prior context. Works on skeleton arguments, witness statements, letters before action, position statements, academic articles, and non-legal structured reasoning.

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.

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. Use whenever the user asks for a "client instruction schedule", "instruction schedule", "client questionnaire", "schedule of questions for the client", "get instructions from the client on the papers", or says the client is overwhelmed and needs the case broken into manageable questions. Also trigger when asked to turn case papers into a structured request for client input. Do NOT use for court-facing Scott Schedules, pleadings, witness statements, or advice letters — this skill produces a client-facing working document only. Output is always a .docx draft for solicitor review, never a final document.

Draft, adapt, and review contracts and clauses aligned with The Chancery Lane Project's methodology for reducing carbon emissions through legal agreements. Use when Claude needs to: (1) Draft new climate-aligned clauses (e.g., net zero commitments, carbon accounting, supply chain decarbonization), (2) Adapt or modify existing contracts to incorporate climate objectives, (3) Review and analyze clauses for alignment with climate goals and decarbonization strategies, (4) Provide guidance on The Chancery Lane Project's house style and drafting methodology for climate-conscious legal work.

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 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.

No Inference / Source-Locked Verification. Forces Claude to answer ONLY from user-provided materials and/or online sources actually accessed — no inference, no assumptions, no gap-filling. Every factual, legal, numerical, or procedural claim must be anchored to a cited source. Use whenever Claude reviews documents, summarises evidence, checks accuracy, drafts submissions, creates timelines, extracts facts, checks citations, analyses rules, prepares legal arguments, compares documents, verifies claims, produces chronologies, works from uploaded materials, performs legal research, checks case status, or does anything where evidential fidelity matters. Also trigger on: 'source-locked', 'no inference', 'only from the materials', 'don't assume', 'stick to the evidence', 'verify this', 'check this is right', 'work from the documents'. Overrides Claude's default tendency to fill gaps. If evidential accuracy matters, use this skill.

Méthodologie « verification-first » pour la Cour Pénale Spéciale de Centrafrique (cour hybride, siège à Bangui). Toute citation est vérifiée (JusticeInfo, FIDH, HRW, legal-tools.org ; les sites officiels renvoient souvent une erreur 403). Couvre l'affaire Paoua, le « notamment » de l'article 3, et la complémentarité avec la CPI. Aide à la recherche, pas un conseil juridique. Fait partie de la bibliothèque open source « Skills for International Justice » — méthodologie : github.com/jeannesulzer/international-criminal-tribunals-skills

Contract intelligence and contract operations workflow skill for Claude and Codex. Guides the full contract lifecycle review process from intake and playbook normalization through clause review, deviation scoring, negotiation planning, approval routing, QA, and action recommendations. Reviews legal, business, operational, compliance, privacy, security, technology, and AI-related risks across contracts and legal documents. Supports NDAs, SaaS agreements, DPAs, procurement contracts, commercial agreements, contract comparisons, redlines, approval packages, clause research, and drafting. Warning-Comprehensive reviews can consume significant Claude/OpenAI tokens, especially for large agreements, playbooks, exhibits, schedules, and multi-document reviews.

Depth assessment of whether an AI system is high-risk under Art. 6 of the EU AI Act, grounded in the Commission's draft Art. 6(5) classification guidelines (general principles + Annex I + Annex III). Covers the Annex I product-safety route, all eight Annex III areas with worked examples, the Art. 6(3) exception and its profiling re-exception, and the Art. 25 quasi-provider trap. Outputs a structured decision block, a practitioner memo, and a JSON interchange artefact.

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.

Generate a spreadsheet of test entries — newly designated names from OFAC, OFSI, and EU sanctions lists plus deliberate variations of those names — to validate that a sanctions screening system catches fresh designations and is tuned to the right fuzziness threshold. Use this whenever the user asks for sanctions list update test data, screening regression test data, screening QA, fuzzy match calibration, or wants to verify their screening lists are current. Trigger even if the user doesn't say 'screening' explicitly — phrases like 'test my sanctions list', 'check our SDN coverage', 'is my list up to date', or 'build me a regression set from the latest designations' should also invoke this skill.

GDPR Transfer Impact Assessment for Chapter V transfers under the EDPB Recommendations 01/2020 six-step methodology, the CNIL TIA Guide (January 2025), and EDPB essential guarantees. Handles transfer qualification, Art. 45 adequacy fast-tracks, Art. 46 full assessments with country profiles for 12 jurisdictions, and balanced Art. 49 derogation analysis. Outputs a Markdown report, a .docx formal TIA, and a JSON delta for RoPA interchange.

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.

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.

Assess, report, and manage serious incidents involving high-risk AI systems under Article 73 EU AI Act. Covers incident qualification, deadline buckets (2/10/15 days), authority notification, deployer duties (Art. 26(5)), cross-regulation mapping (GDPR/NIS2/MDR), corrective measures, and DACH-specific routing. Use when asked to evaluate whether an AI incident is reportable, draft an Article 73 notification, identify the right authority, or build an AI incident response process.

Swiss legal source and authority triage. Use when a user asks a Swiss legal, regulatory, compliance, contract, employment, corporate, litigation, IP, tax, privacy, public-law, fintech, register, or cantonal-law question; when Swiss law may apply; or when an AI legal answer needs source routing across federal, cantonal, communal, regulator, register, contractual, professional, soft-law, multilingual, or open-data layers.

Assess and operationalize implementation readiness for high-risk AI systems under the EU AI Act Annex III, including provider and deployer obligations, conformity assessment, post-market monitoring, and EU database registration. Use when users say things like “we classified this as high-risk, what now?”, “build an EU AI Act readiness plan”, “assess our Annex III compliance gaps”, “what do providers/deployers of high-risk AI need to implement?”, “prepare for conformity assessment”, or “create a high-risk AI implementation roadmap.”

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. 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).

Generates a formal, structured AI Act compliance assessment report suitable for legal files, audit trails, and regulatory inquiries. This skill should be used when the user asks to "generate an AI Act report", "create a compliance assessment report", "document the AI Act analysis", "create a Prüfbericht", "export as Word document", or wants to consolidate prior AI Act skill outputs into a formal documented assessment.

Assess whether Government of India approval is required for foreign investment in an Indian company under Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and the Non-Debt Instruments Rules, 2019. The skill systematically gathers transaction details, evaluates sectoral entry routes and caps, assesses land border country restrictions under applicable laws, and delivers a preliminary compliance note. Produces clear guidance on whether the investment falls within Automatic Route or requires Government approval.

Reviews outside counsel invoices and related billing data for an in-house legal department, including LEDES or e-billing exports, OCGs, approved rates, discounts, budgets, AFAs, and staffing rules. Starts with internal comparisons before bringing in external data. Produces invoice review findings, MBR/QBR scorecards, dispute logs, and management reports. For demonstration purposes only and not professional advice.

Assess whether a Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment (FRIA) is required under Article 27 EU AI Act, and structure or draft that assessment for a specific high-risk AI deployment. Covers deployer scope gating (public bodies and private entities providing public services), affected group mapping, Charter rights analysis, proportionality, safeguards evaluation, residual risk, DPIA/FRIA cross-referencing under the amended Article 27(4), the unconditional notification duty under Article 27(3), and DACH-specific considerations. Use when asked about FRIA obligations, Article 27 scope, fundamental rights and AI, or deployer assessment duties.

Pick the right LLM for LEGAL RESEARCH & ANALYSIS — issue-spotting, rule application, case/statute analysis, memos, and multi-step agentic research. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 benchmarks (Vals AI LegalBench across 124 models; Harvey Legal Agent Benchmark for agentic work). Asks up to 4 quick questions (cost, speed, accuracy/stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/language), then recommends a primary model + fallback + what to avoid + what a human must verify. Use when someone asks "which model for legal research / case analysis / a memo", "best AI for legal reasoning", "route this research task", or is starting legal analysis without a fixed model.

Pick the right LLM for CONTRACT REVIEW — reviewing an existing agreement for risk, deviations from standard, missing protections, and internal contradictions, and proposing redlines. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 legal benchmarks. Contract review is a COMPOSITE skill (extraction + reasoning + redlining + conflict-detection), so this routes by the dominant sub-task. Asks up to 4 quick questions (cost, speed, accuracy/stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/ language), then recommends a primary model + fallback + what to avoid + what a human must verify. Use when someone asks "which model to review this contract / NDA / MSA", "best AI to redline", "route this contract review", or is about to review an agreement without a fixed model.

Pick the right LLM for LEGAL INFO EXTRACTION — pulling facts, clauses, dates, parties, obligations, and structured fields out of contracts and legal documents. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 benchmarks (legalbenchmarks.ai Info Extraction; CUAD/MAUD/ACORD). Asks up to 4 quick questions (cost, speed, accuracy/stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/language), then recommends a primary model + fallback + what to avoid + what a human must verify. Use when someone asks "which model should I use to extract clauses/data from these documents", "best AI for contract data extraction", "route this extraction task", or is about to pull structured fields from legal docs without a fixed model.

Pick the right LLM for CONTRACT DRAFTING — generating, redlining, or rewriting contract language from instructions. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 legal benchmarks (legalbenchmarks.ai Contract Drafting). Asks up to 4 quick questions (cost, speed, accuracy/ stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/language), then recommends a primary model + fallback + what to avoid + what a human must verify. Use when someone asks "which model should I use to draft this clause/agreement", "best AI for drafting contracts", "route this drafting task", or is about to generate/redline contract text and hasn't fixed a model.

Pick the right LLM for LEGAL TRANSLATION — translating contracts, statutes, case law, and legal correspondence across languages, including Arabic/MENA. Vendor-neutral routing triangulated from mid-2026 evidence (WMT25 human eval, SwiLTra-Bench legal-MT, multilingual-reasoning proxies, ArabLegalEval). There is NO clean legal-translation leaderboard, so this vertical is directional and treats human legal-linguist review as mandatory. Asks up to 4 quick questions (language pair, cost, speed, privacy/certification), then recommends a primary model + fallback + what to avoid + what a human must verify. Use when someone asks "which model to translate this contract/statute", "best AI for legal translation", "translate this legal doc to/from Arabic", or is about to machine-translate legal text without a fixed model.