Claude Skills
The open format is called Agent Skills and works in Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and other agents — most people know it as Claude Skills.
Every Agent Skill we could find on GitHub, deduplicated by content. 79 551 files from 1 750 authors, of which 61 898 are unique — the rest is the same skill repackaged into someone else's repository. For each one: what it weighs in tokens, whether it ships runnable scripts, and which MCP servers it needs.
Export Administration Regulations (EAR, 15 CFR Parts 730-774) compliance advisor — ECCN classification across all 10 CCL categories and 5 product groups (A-E), EAR99 determination, jurisdiction analysis (EAR vs ITAR order of review), license requirement analysis via Country Chart, all license exceptions (LVS, GBS, CIV, TMP, RPL, GOV, TSU, ENC, TSR, APP, BAG, AVS, ACE), end-user/end-use controls (Entity List, Denied Persons List, Unverified List, MEU List), deemed export rules, Foreign Direct Product Rule (FDPR), de minimis thresholds, 10 General Prohibitions, SNAP-R license applications, voluntary self-disclosure, civil/criminal penalties, Export Compliance Program (ECP) design, and EAR vs ITAR jurisdiction determination. Use for any dual-use export control, CCL classification, or BIS compliance question.
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
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).
> Translate legal documents from any language into English while preserving .docx formatting and translating track changes and headers/footers. Use this skill whenever the user asks to translate a legal document, contract, deed, agreement, or any formal legal text into English. Also trigger when the user mentions translating .docx files that contain legal content, or asks for a "format-preserving translation" of a legal document. This skill covers all legal SaaS and more. Even if the user just says "translate this contract" or "translate this into English", use this skill if the document is legal in nature.
> Translate legal documents from any language into English while preserving .docx formatting and translating track changes and headers/footers. Use this skill whenever the user asks to translate a legal document, contract, deed, agreement, or any formal legal text into English. Also trigger when the user mentions translating .docx files that contain legal content, or asks for a "format-preserving translation" of a legal document. This skill covers all legal SaaS and more. Even if the user just says "translate this contract" or "translate this into English", use this skill if the document is legal in nature.
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.
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'.
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.
| 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.
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.
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.”
|
| 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.
| 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.
| 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.
| 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.
Classify an AI system under the EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, KI-Verordnung) and determine compliance obligations. Walks Art. 3(1) AI system definition (7-criteria test), Art. 2 scope exclusions, Art. 5 prohibited practice screening, Annex I product safety, Annex III high-risk use cases (biometrics, critical infrastructure, education, employment, credit scoring, insurance, law enforcement, migration, justice), Art. 6(3) narrow procedural exception, Art. 51-56 GPAI with the 10^25 FLOP systemic risk threshold, and Art. 50 transparency triggers (deepfakes, emotion recognition, synthetic content). Roles: provider (Anbieter), deployer (Betreiber), importer, distributor, Art. 25 quasi-provider. DACH: Betriebsrat, BaFin, BSI, BNetzA, BfDI. Use when asked to classify an AI system or model, run a Risikoklassifizierung, assess Annex III high-risk status, screen Art. 5 prohibited practices, check the Art. 6(3) exception, classify a medical device, medical imaging, credit scoring, HR or CV screening, employment screening, biometric identification, emotion recognition, deepfake, content moderation, fraud detection, recommender, chatbot, generative AI or foundation model system, run an AI vendor or procurement compliance review, or determine GPAI obligations.
EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) compliance advisor — risk classification across all four tiers, all 9 prohibited practices (Art. 5, including the nudification/CSAM prohibition from Dec 2, 2026), all 8 Annex III high-risk use case areas, provider and deployer obligations (Arts. 9–17, 26), GPAI model obligations including the July 2025 Code of Practice (Arts. 51–55), conformity assessment and CE marking (Arts. 43–48), EU AI database registration, Art. 50 transparency (chatbots, synthetic media, AI-generated content), governance (AI Office, AI Board), penalties (Art. 99), confirmed phase-in timeline (Digital Omnibus adopted June 29, 2026: Annex III deferred to Dec 2, 2027; Annex I to Aug 2, 2028), and cross-framework mapping to ISO 42001, NIST AI RMF, and GDPR. Use for any EU AI regulation, AI system classification, or AI compliance question. Current as of July 2026. GPAI enforcement powers activate August 2, 2026.
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.
Assess compliance obligations under the EU Data Act (Regulation (EU) 2023/2854) for connected products, IoT devices, data sharing, cloud switching, B2B fairness, B2G data access, dispute resolution, and international data transfers. Covers scope assessment (manufacturer, data holder, data recipient roles), user data access rights, pre-sale transparency, unfair contract terms, public authority data requests, cloud portability, dispute settlement mechanisms, international transfer restrictions, access-by-design obligations, trade secret protection, and cross-regulation mapping with GDPR, AI Act, and CRA. Use when assessing Data Act obligations, designing connected products, drafting data sharing contracts, responding to B2G requests, planning cloud switching capabilities, or evaluating dispute resolution options.
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.
EU Data Act (Regulation (EU) 2023/2854) skill for lawyers. Use when the user asks about Data Act classification, drafting, lookup, analysis, or audit. Triggers include "Data Act", "Regulation 2023/2854", "connected product", "related service", "data processing service", "DPS switching", "Article 3(2) pre-contract", "Article 25 contract", "trade-secret handbrake", "international government access", "Chapter VI cloud switching", "Article 50 timeline", "FAQ Q22a", "data holder", "exportable data", "functional equivalence", "Art. 4(10) competing product", and similar EU Data Act phrases. The skill produces lawyer-style Word output and cites verbatim from bundled regulation and FAQ source texts.
Access EU law. Search and retrieve Directives, Regulations, Treaties and CJEU case law from EUR-Lex.
Toolkit for comprehensive Spreadsheet reading, creation, editing, and analysis with visual quality control. Use to work with spreadsheets (.xlsx, .xlsm, .csv, .tsv) for: (1) Creating new spreadsheets with formulas and formatting, (2) Reading or analyzing tabular data, (3) Modifying existing spreadsheets while preserving formulas, (4) Building financial models with proper formatting, (5) Data visualization with in-sheet charts, or any other spreadsheet tasks.
Méthodologie « verification-first » pour les Chambres Africaines Extraordinaires (procès Hissène Habré, Dakar). Toute citation est vérifiée (forumchambresafricaines.org, legal-tools.org). Couvre le jugement du 30 mai 2016, l'arrêt d'appel du 27 avril 2017 (réparations de 82,290 milliards FCFA pour 7 396 victimes), et la compétence universelle. 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
Expert guidance for FedRAMP certification and compliance under CR26 (FedRAMP Consolidated Rules for 2026). Use this skill whenever a user asks about FedRAMP authorization, ATO (Authority to Operate), cloud security for federal government, NIST SP 800-53 controls, CSP compliance, or any of the core FedRAMP document types: SSP, SAP, SAR, POA&M, CIS/CRM workbooks. Also trigger for questions about FedRAMP Certification Classes (A, B, C, D — new baseline labels: A = pilot/transitional, B = LI-SaaS/Low, C = Moderate, D = High, per NTC-0004), FedRAMP 20x (now the primary authorization pathway), OSCAL mandate (September 2026), 3PAO assessments, continuous monitoring (ConMon), gap assessments, system boundary definition, or architecture reviews for federal cloud. FedRAMP Ready retires July 28, 2026. When in doubt, use this skill — it covers the full FedRAMP lifecycle from readiness through continuous monitoring.
AFA design, scope-to-fee matching, negotiation preparation, health check, and scope dispute assessment for in-house legal ops teams managing outside counsel arrangements. Design fee structures (fixed, capped, collar, blended, phased, success). Assess whether scope supports a proposed AFA. Prepare commercial positions for fee negotiations. Review existing AFAs against delivery data. Assess OOS claims and build dispute response. Trigger on: 'structure the fee', 'move off hourly', 'design an AFA', 'does scope support a fixed fee?', 'negotiate the fee', 'renegotiate the arrangement', 'is our AFA holding?', 'fee health check', 'cap is being approached', 'firm is claiming OOS', 'is this in scope?', 'is this OOS?', 'AI should reduce the cost', 'blended rate vs fixed', 'collar arrangement', 'phased fees'.
Use when a calculator, financial model, investor memo, due diligence report, risk review, dashboard, or client-facing explanation needs clear distinctions between accounting and finance concepts such as cash flow vs profit, EBIT vs EBITDA, CapEx vs OpEx, debt vs equity, market value vs book value, ROI vs ROE, assets vs liabilities, and accounting vs finance.
An end-to-end method for drafting and finalising a complex, multi-pillar regulated fintech agreement — from intake to signature. Authored from a senior fintech lawyer's manual: a licensed payment-services provider engaging a counterparty across agent cash-in/cash-out, QR payments, wallet e-payments, and a marketplace, each with its own regulatory profile. Runs five phases and fourteen steps: regulatory mapping (activity-to-licence matrix, grey-zone classification gates), architecture (framework-plus-sub-agreement structure, ring-fenced marketplace), the regulatory–commercial balance (what flexes vs what cannot), core drafting (authority, float mechanics, hard-coded regulator caps, liability — all tracking control), execution-blocker triage, and a pre-signature check closing open blockers as conditions precedent. It refuses to invent licence-specific values or draft a representation as true without executed evidence. Use it to structure, draft, negotiate, or review any regulated payments contract.
A drafting-and-review copilot for a founders' / co-founders' agreement — the terms fixing equity, vesting, IP, roles, control, deadlock, and departure between cofounders. Jurisdiction-agnostic, anchored on the Delaware C-corp default. Two modes: DRAFT (intake → equity & vesting → clauses → blocker triage → pre-signature check) and REVIEW (audit an existing agreement against an 18-clause checklist and red-flag scan). It handles the highest-dispute terms first-class: the equity split as documented reasoning (not a fake calculator), reverse vesting and the 83(b) clock, present-tense IP assignment (the Stanford v. Roche trap), leaver buyback and dead equity, and the deadlock clause most tools omit. It drafts for the venture, never one founder against another. Not legal 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 interaction, notification 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.
|
Expert GDPR compliance assistant covering all four core workflows: (1) auditing code and systems for GDPR violations, (2) drafting GDPR-compliant documents such as privacy policies, Data Processing Agreements (DPAs), and consent notices, (3) answering GDPR compliance questions with authoritative article citations, and (4) reviewing data flows and PII handling practices. Use this skill whenever the user mentions GDPR, data protection, privacy compliance, lawful basis, data subject rights, DPA, privacy notices, consent management, data breaches, DPIAs, controller/ processor relationships, cross-border data transfers, or any EU/UK data privacy topic. Also trigger for questions like \"is this GDPR compliant?\", \"how do I handle personal data?\", \"what does a privacy policy need?\", or any request involving PII, personal data, or data retention in a regulatory context.
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.
> 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".
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.
Assess compliance with the EU General-Purpose AI (GPAI) Code of Practice under the AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, KI-Verordnung) Articles 51-56. Covers GPAI model identification (Art. 3(63)), systemic risk model designation (Art. 3(65), Art. 51, 10^25 FLOP training compute threshold), upstream provider obligations under Art. 53 (transparency, technical documentation, copyright policy and EU rights reservation, training data summary template), additional systemic risk obligations under Art. 55 (model evaluation benchmarks, adversarial red-teaming, AI Office incident notification under Art. 55(1)(c), cybersecurity), AI Office notification (Art. 52), downstream provider duties (Art. 25 quasi-provider), and Art. 53(2) open-source LLM exemption. Maps the 12 GPAI Code of Practice commitments across transparency, copyright, and safety-and-security chapters. DACH: BaFin, BSI, BNetzA, Betriebsrat. Use when asked about GPAI provider obligations, LLM or foundation model compliance, the Art. 51 systemic risk threshold, Art. 53 transparency requirements, Art. 55 systemic-risk obligations, AI Office notification, downstream Art. 25 duties, Art. 53(2) open-source exemption, or generative AI provider compliance under the EU AI Act.
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.
>- LawyerScrib est un skill pour Claude Code et Cursor qui nettoie ces traces. Il scanne 17 patterns typiques de l'écriture IA appliquée au droit français (conclusions, consultations, notes, mails, actes) et réécrit chaque passage pour retrouver le ton d'un avocat qui argumente, pas d'un modèle qui rédige.
Use this skill when asked about forming, registering, or structuring a company in Iceland. Triggers on questions about Icelandic business entities (ehf, hf, sf, svf, ses), capital requirements, registration with Fyrirtækjaskrá, governance structures, or choosing the right entity type.
Use this skill when asked to review, analyze, or draft a contract governed by Icelandic law. Triggers on requests involving Icelandic commercial agreements, consumer contracts, sales agreements, service contracts, or any contract where Icelandic mandatory rules may apply.
Use this skill when asked to find, cite, analyze, or summarize Icelandic court decisions. Triggers on requests involving Hæstiréttur (Supreme Court), Landsréttur (Court of Appeal), Félagsdómur (Labour Court), héraðsdómur (District Court) case law, or Icelandic legal precedent research.
Use this skill when asked to analyze how Iceland has implemented an EU directive or regulation into national law, identify gaps between EU/EEA law and Icelandic implementation, or assess Iceland's compliance with EEA obligations. Triggers on questions about EEA transposition, ESA infringement, or EU-Iceland legal gaps.
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.
Use this skill when asked to translate, explain, or map Icelandic legal terms to English (or vice versa). Triggers on requests involving Icelandic legal vocabulary, legal translation, understanding Icelandic statutes or court decisions, or cross-referencing Icelandic and common law concepts.
Use this skill when asked to review data protection or privacy compliance under Icelandic law and GDPR. Triggers on requests involving personal data processing, privacy policies, DPIA assessments, kennitala handling, Persónuvernd filings, or cross-border data transfers from Iceland.
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. Part of the open-source \"Skills for International Justice\" library - methodology: github.com/jeannesulzer/international-criminal-tribunals-skills
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
Asistente jurídico experto en derecho chileno. Úsalo cuando el usuario haga consultas sobre normativa, códigos, procedimientos o jurisprudencia de Chile y necesite respuestas fundamentadas con cita de ley y artículo y una fuente verificable (BCN). No usar para derecho de otros países ni como reemplazo de asesoría legal formal. Funciona SIN base de datos externa: responde con el conocimiento del modelo, por lo que debe marcar toda incertidumbre y remitir a la fuente oficial para verificación.
Invoice review, non-compliance flagging, rejection communication, billing trend analysis, and conversation preparation for in-house legal ops teams managing outside counsel. Review invoices against billing guidelines; flag block billing, prohibited fees, rate violations, staffing violations, late submission. Produce line-item review report and approval note. Draft rejection letter to outside counsel. Build invoice review checklist. Analyse billing trends across multiple invoices and produce a structured conversation guide for the relationship review. Identify systemic patterns and produce formal non-compliance notice. Trigger on: 'review this invoice', 'flag billing issues', 'check invoice against guidelines', 'write the rejection letter', 'build an invoice checklist', 'block billing', 'UTBMS', 'billing non-compliance', 'analyse our invoices', 'billing trends', 'prep for the billing conversation', 'relationship review', 'the firm keeps doing this', 'escalate'.
| Restructure any rough build, research, or legal-drafting request into an IRAC-shaped prompt — Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion — optimized for a frontier model. It's the bar-exam framework, repurposed as prompt engineering. The skill leads with the issue and ends with the conclusion (where models weight attention most), forces you to name your constraints and non-goals, and specifies what "good" looks like before a single token is generated. Use it before any non-trivial build, or whenever a vague ask deserves a precise brief.
Compliant, retrieval-grounded research over investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) awards and decisions. Use when the user asks about ICSID / investment-treaty arbitration cases, awards, or doctrines (fair and equitable treatment, expropriation, jurisdiction, costs, annulment, etc.) and wants answers grounded in the actual document text with pinpoint citations. Identifies the correct document on the case page, confirms it against the PDF's own first pages, retrieves primary documents on demand from ICSID, PCA, etc., never scrapes or hosts a corpus in violation of applicable terms, and cites only retrieved text.
Expert Australian Information Security Manual (ISM) advisor for government entities and their supply chains. Use for ISM control selection, gap analysis, system authorisation, IRAP assessment preparation, security documentation, and ASD compliance. Triggers on: ISM controls, ASD compliance, IRAP assessment, PROTECTED system scoping, Essential Eight vs ISM, system authorisation, NC/OS/ PROTECTED/SECRET/TOP SECRET classification markings, security objectives, ISM guidelines or chapters, control applicability markings, cybersecurity documentation for Australian government, and any question about the ASD Information Security Manual framework or Australian government cybersecurity obligations.
Expert ISO 27001 compliance assistant for security and compliance teams. Use this skill whenever a user asks about ISO 27001 or ISO/IEC 27001, including any of the following: gap analysis, auditing, compliance assessments, control checklists, policy writing, document generation, Statement of Applicability (SoA), risk assessment, risk registers, risk treatment plans, Annex A controls, ISMS implementation, clause requirements, certification readiness, transitioning from 2013 to 2022, control implementation guidance, incident response policies, access control policies, supplier security, or any information security management system (ISMS) topic. Trigger even if the user doesn't say \"skill\" — any ISO 27001 or ISMS question should use this skill.
Expert ISO 27701 Privacy Information Management System (PIMS) compliance advisor. Use this skill whenever a user asks about ISO/IEC 27701:2025, ISO/IEC 27701:2019, privacy information management, PIMS certification, PII controller or processor obligations, privacy risk assessment, Statement of Applicability for privacy, privacy by design, data subject rights, DPIA, records of processing activities, transitioning from ISO 27701:2019, GDPR alignment with ISO 27701, or any privacy management system topic. Also trigger for questions about Annex A.1 (controller controls), A.2 (processor controls), A.3 (shared security controls), or implementing a standalone PIMS without ISO 27001. When in doubt, use this skill — it covers the full ISO 27701 lifecycle from gap assessment through certification.
Expert ISO 42001 AI Management System (AIMS) compliance advisor. Use this skill whenever a user asks about ISO/IEC 42001:2023, AI governance, AI management systems, AI risk assessment, AI system impact assessment, Annex A controls for AI, Statement of Applicability for AI systems, AI policy, responsible AI, AI lifecycle management, AI incident management, AI transparency, AI bias, AI certification readiness, or any topic related to implementing or auditing an AI Management System. Also trigger for questions like \"how do I become ISO 42001 certified?\", \"what controls does ISO 42001 require?\", \"how do I assess AI risk under 42001?\", \"what is an AIMS?\", or any request involving organisational governance of AI systems, responsible AI frameworks, or AI regulatory compliance aligned to an ISO standard.
Expert ITAR compliance advisor for US defense contractors, exporters, and manufacturers. Use this skill for any question about 22 CFR Parts 120-130, the United States Munitions List (USML), DDTC registration, export license applications (DSP-5/73/94), Technical Assistance Agreements (TAA), Manufacturing License Agreements (MLA), brokering regulations (Part 129), deemed export rules for foreign nationals, technology control plans, voluntary disclosures, violation mitigation, jurisdiction determination (ITAR vs EAR), or US Munitions List category scoping. Trigger even if the user doesn't say \"skill\" — any ITAR or US defense export control question should use this skill.
Claude Skills — questions
Answers built from the skills we actually parsed.