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.
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'.
> 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.
Review contracts against your organization's negotiation playbook, flagging deviations and generating redline suggestions. Use when reviewing vendor contracts, customer agreements, or any commercial agreement where you need clause-by-clause analysis against standard positions.
|
Navigate privacy regulations (GDPR, CCPA), review DPAs, and handle data subject requests. Use when reviewing data processing agreements, responding to data subject access or deletion requests, assessing cross-border data transfer requirements, or evaluating privacy compliance.
|
Guide for drafting privacy policies compliant with GDPR. Includes CNIL 2020 recommendations, a reference template, and best practices. Use when drafting or revising a privacy policy for a website or application.
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.
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.
AI-assisted generation of MCQs (multiple-choice questionnaires) with export to Moodle (GIFT, XML), Wooclap (Excel), Kahoot!, and Word. Supports light MCQs (gamified) and in-depth MCQs (evaluative), with single-answer and multiple-answer formats.
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).
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.
>- >Ce skill donne accès à l'API de judilibre. Vous formulez votre demande en français, il interroge la base Judlibre et renvoie les réponses. Attention le skill ne fonctionne que si des domaines supplémentaires sont utilisés et que l'utilisateur a rentré sa propre clé Judlibre. Ce skill et son auteur n'ont aucun lien avec la Cour de cassation ou Judilibre
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.
Adversarial verification of AI-generated legal content with systematic fact-checking, source validation, and quality control. Use when a user asks to verify, fact-check, red-team, validate sources, or quality-control a legal document, briefing, compliance summary, or regulatory analysis before it is distributed to clients, stakeholders, or published. Trigger phrases include "verify", "fact-check", "red team", "red-flag", "check accuracy", "validate sources", "quality control", "is this correct", and "review for errors". Produces a structured verification report with severity-categorized errors, verified sources, unsupported claim list, missing disclaimers, and an explicit distribution-readiness assessment.
Generates standalone interactive HTML "deal cards" that translate complex regulations into negotiation-ready reference tools, systematically distinguishing mandatory obligations from negotiable implementation choices. Use when the user needs an interactive regulatory guide for (1) contract negotiation support, (2) client education or internal training, (3) regulatory briefings for commercial stakeholders, or (4) structured comparison between required and flexible compliance paths. Primary focus on EU digital regulation (Data Act, AI Act, CRA, DORA, NIS2, GDPR) but the structural pattern transfers to any regulation where separating hard obligations from implementation choice is the point. Supports bilingual output where the jurisdiction calls for it.
> Use when an application or system — including one built quickly with AI 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.
Optimizes Claude for proofreading French texts, whether literary, technical, or professional. Grammar and spelling checks, detection of barbarisms, and stylistic suggestions.
Rédaction de requêtes devant le Conseil de prud'hommes pour contester un licenciement pour faute grave. Utiliser ce skill quand l'utilisateur demande de rédiger une requête CPH, contester un licenciement pour faute grave, préparer une saisine du CPH pour un litige lié à un licenciement, ou créer un document de contestation de licenciement en droit du travail français.
Team structure, gearing analysis, continuity planning, and competing demand management for legal matters. Use when setting up a matter team, reviewing whether work is being done at the right grade, planning cover for an unavailable team member, or managing a resource conflict across matters. Trigger on: 'who should be on this matter', 'team structure', 'gearing', 'right people at the right level', 'partner is doing associate work', 'cover for maternity leave', 'who has capacity', 'team member leaving', 'over-allocated', 'staffing conflict', 'pinch point', 'capacity problem', 'how do we resource this', 'team too senior', 'team too junior'.
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'.
> 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.
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'.
Determines whether a specific AI-agent action, output, recommendation, or proposed commitment remains admissible for execution or institutional reliance under current authority, delegated scope, evidence, facts, policy, risk, escalation, and revocation conditions. Use this Skill before an enterprise or regulated AI agent executes, updates records, triggers workflows, communicates externally, or before an institution relies on an agentic output in a way that creates consequence.
Sanctions and export control analysis tool for Claude Desktop. Real-time individual screening across 30+ official lists (UN, EU, OFAC, OFSI, French DGT...), sectoral analysis, dual-use goods (EU Reg. 2021/821), US/China extraterritorial regimes (EAR, ITAR, FDPR, ECL), USD/SWIFT risk and jurisdictional mapping across 30+ countries. All results sourced and verified in real time — no memory-based answers. Responds in French, English, German, Spanish, Russian and Chinese. Updated 19 May 2026 (EU 20th package, UK SEUC, Cuba EO). Indicative guidance only — not legal advice.
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'.
Adjudicates whether a hit generated by sanctions, PEP, or adverse-media screening is a true positive, false positive, or requires human escalation. Use whenever a user presents a screening alert, a name match against a watchlist (OFAC SDN, EU consolidated list, UK OFSI, UN list, PEP list, adverse media hit, etc.), or asks to clear a screening hit / reduce false positives / determine whether a flagged name is actually the listed party. Use even when the user describes the task casually — \"is this person actually on the sanctions list\", \"did we get a real match\", \"clear this alert\", \"I have a hit on X\" — these are all screening-adjudication tasks. Produces a deterministic determination with full audit trail (structured JSON + human-readable narrative). Designed for use by compliance analysts and screening systems.
Expert Section 508 compliance advisor for US federal ICT accessibility. Use this skill whenever a user asks about Section 508, WCAG 2.0/2.1 AA for federal systems, VPAT or Accessibility Conformance Reports (ACR), accessibility audits, remediation planning, PDF accessibility, web or software accessibility, mobile accessibility, federal procurement accessibility requirements, contractor obligations, undue burden exceptions, assistive technology compatibility, or Section 508 testing. Covers the Revised Section 508 Standards (2018), all WCAG 2.0 Level AA success criteria, the four POUR principles, testing methodologies, and agency compliance workflows. Trigger even if the user doesn't say \"skill\" — any Section 508 or ICT accessibility question for federal systems should use this skill.
Serious Incident Reporting (SIR) for high-risk AI systems under Article 73 EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, KI-Verordnung). Assess, qualify, draft, and submit Article 73 Serious Incident Reporting notifications across the four Art. 3(49) harm categories: death or serious damage to health, critical infrastructure disruption, breach of fundamental rights under Union law, and serious property or environmental damage. Covers Art. 73 deadline buckets (2/10/15 days), market surveillance authority notification, deployer duties under Art. 26(5), cross-regulation mapping with GDPR Art. 33/34 breach notification, NIS2 Art. 23 incident reporting, DORA Art. 19 ICT incident, and MDR vigilance, corrective measures, root-cause analysis, and DACH routing through German market surveillance (BNetzA, BaFin, BSI, BfArM, KBA). Use when asked to evaluate whether an AI incident is reportable, draft a Serious Incident Reporting notification under Art. 73, build an AI incident response playbook, handle an AI failure, AI bias incident, AI discrimination incident or automated decision failure, identify the right market surveillance authority, manage 2/10/15-day Article 73 deadlines, or handle a schwerwiegender Vorfall under the EU AI Act.
Reviews or drafts the agreement that pays an employee to settle their claims — and flags the statutory conditions that decide whether it actually binds them. Works under s.203 ERA 1996 for England & Wales. Flags apparent s.203 condition gaps for a solicitor to confirm (writing, specific complaints, independent adviser, identification, insurance, statement of conditions), drafts the substantive terms (sum, tax characterisation, confidentiality, references, restrictive covenants, indemnities), and surfaces enforceability risks. Does not rule on validity and is not legal advice. Use when the user says 'review this settlement agreement', 'draft a settlement agreement', 'compromise agreement' (old term), or asks whether an agreement is binding.
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.
Guide for creating effective skills. Use when users want to create a new skill (or update an existing skill) that extends the model's capabilities with specialized knowledge, workflows, or tool integrations.
Guide to analyze a current work session and propose improvements to skills. Use (1) automatically after working with a skill to capture learnings, (2) when the user suggests improvements, corrections, or additions during a skill-related session, or (3) when the user manually invokes `self-improve`.
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.
Audit an AI agent skill before installing it. Use proactively whenever the user is about to add, install, enable, or evaluate an unfamiliar skill — including phrases like "audit this skill", "is this skill safe", "scan skill before install", "check skill for malicious code", "review this plugin", or any pre-install gate on an untrusted, third-party, or community-distributed skill bundle. Runs ten categories of static checks (code execution, network exfiltration, credential harvesting, persistence, prompt injection, supply-chain hooks, obfuscation, destructive filesystem ops, secrets, Trojan Source / homoglyphs) and emits a PASS / WARN / FAIL verdict.
Expert SOC 2 compliance assistant covering all five Trust Services Criteria (Security/CC, Availability/A, Confidentiality/C, Processing Integrity/PI, Privacy/P). Use this skill whenever a user mentions SOC 2, Trust Services Criteria, SOC 2 Type 1 or Type 2, audit readiness, compliance gaps, control documentation, evidence collection, vendor risk questionnaires, or anything related to AICPA service organization controls. Trigger even for adjacent topics like \"we need to get audited\", \"a customer asked for our security report\", \"writing an information security policy\", or \"preparing for an audit\". Covers gap analysis, policy writing, control documentation, audit evidence preparation, and vendor risk reviews for organizations at any maturity level — from first-time startups to seasoned compliance teams.
>- 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 '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.
Verification-first methodology for the Special Court for Sierra Leone and its Residual Special Court. Citations are verified against rscsl.org and legal-tools.org. Covers Taylor, the AFRC/CDF/RUF cases, the child-soldier and forced-marriage holdings, the head-of-State immunity decision, and the fixed-term (no life) penalty regime. Research aid, not legal advice. Part of the open-source \"Skills for International Justice\" library — methodology: github.com/jeannesulzer/international-criminal-tribunals-skills
Verification-first methodology for the Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz (JEP), Colombia's transitional justice court under the 2016 Acuerdo Final with FARC-EP. Citations are verified against jep.gov.co before use. Covers the 11 macrocasos (from Caso 01 secuestro through Caso 11 violencia sexual, including Caso 03 falsos positivos), the three sanction tiers (propias, alternativas, ordinarias), TOAR, and the SIVJRNR sister bodies (CEV, UBPD). Guards the key structural distinctions (Sala de Reconocimiento vs Tribunal para la Paz; comparecientes FARC-EP vs Fuerza Pública vs terceros civiles; Acto Legislativo 01/2017 vs Ley Estatutaria 1957/2019). Research aid, not legal advice.
Verification-first methodology for the Special Panels for Serious Crimes of the Dili District Court (UNTAET, 2000–2006). Citations are verified against JSMP, the UN archives and legal-tools.org. Covers the Los Palos case, the Serious Crimes Unit caseload (391 indicted; about 88 tried) and the SPSC-vs-Jakarta distinction. Research aid, not legal advice. Part of the open-source \"Skills for International Justice\" library — methodology: github.com/jeannesulzer/international-criminal-tribunals-skills
Verification-first methodology for the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. Citations are verified against the STL legacy archive and legal-tools.org. Covers the Ayyash et al. case, the two contempt cases (STL-14-05 New TV/Al-Khayat and STL-14-06 Akhbar Beirut/Al-Amin), and the 2011 terrorism decision. Research aid, not legal advice. Part of the open-source \"Skills for International Justice\" library — methodology: github.com/jeannesulzer/international-criminal-tribunals-skills
Stakeholder mapping, communication plan design, reporting hierarchy, and mid-matter comms updates. Use when setting up a new matter and needing to identify who needs what information, designing the communication rhythm, building reporting structures for multi-jurisdiction programmes, or updating the comms plan when the stakeholder landscape changes. Trigger on: 'stakeholder map', 'who needs to be kept informed', 'communication plan', 'reporting structure', 'who do we report to', 'how often do we meet', 'client wants more updates', 'new contact on the client side', 'build the comms plan', 'reporting hierarchy', 'HQ vs regions', 'who is the decision maker', 'comms rhythm', 'meeting cadence', 'status call schedule'.
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.
First-pass framework for reading, interpreting, and structuring statutory analysis of US federal, state, and local law. Produces draft analysis for attorney review — not legal advice. Use this skill whenever the user references a specific US statute, regulation, ordinance, or rule by citation, asks "what does [statute X] require," asks for compliance scoping, applicability thresholds, requirement extraction, exemption analysis, definitional analysis, federal preemption analysis, or multi-state comparison — even if they don't explicitly ask for "statutory analysis." Halts and asks for missing inputs rather than guessing. Out of scope for non-US law.
> Brief statutes and legislative Acts using the MAPS + RULES framework. Use when briefing statutes, analyzing legislative text, mapping statutory structure, extracting rule-modules from provisions, applying statutes to scenarios, or any statutory analysis task. Triggers include "brief this statute," "analyze this Act," "map the statute," "apply [statute] to [scenario]," "what are the elements of [provision]," "statutory analysis," or references to codified sections (such as 42 U.S.C. sections or Texas Health & Safety Code). Supports two modes - (A) text-only briefing for structural analysis, and (B) scenario-driven briefing that applies statutory provisions to specific facts.
>Ce skill génère des sujets d'entraînement pour les deux épreuves écrites de consultation du CRFPA : l'épreuve de droit des obligations (tronc commun) et l'épreuve de spécialité (civil, affaires, social, pénal, administratif, international et européen, fiscal). Chaque sujet est accompagné d'une grille de notation détaillée sur 20 points. Vous ciblez un thème précis, ou vous laissez le skill procéder à un tirage au sort couvrant l'ensemble du programme. Connexion aux MCP OpenLegi et GoodLegal requise : toutes les références d'articles et d'arrêts sont vérifiées sur les sources officielles, sans citation inventée
>- Produces an adversarial attack on a legal argument that survives reply. Runs the 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.
Expert SWIFT Customer Security Programme (CSP) advisor covering the Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF v2026). Use this skill whenever a user asks about SWIFT CSP, CSCF controls, SWIFT security attestation, KYC-SA portal, SWIFT architecture types (A1/A2/A3/A4/B), mandatory vs advisory controls, independent assessment, SWIFT secure zone, secure flow zone, MFA for operators, SWIFT messaging security, payment fraud prevention on SWIFT, gap analysis for CSCF, or compliance with SWIFT's 32 controls (25 mandatory, 7 advisory in v2026) across the three objectives: Secure Your Environment, Know and Limit Access, Detect and Respond. Control 2.4 (Back-Office Data Flow Security) is now mandatory in v2026. v2026 attestation window is July 1– December 31, 2026. Trigger for any SWIFT CSP or CSCF compliance question.
>- 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.
Guide to analyze multiple documents (PDF, DOCX) against user-defined columns and produce a structured Excel output with citations. Use when the user wants to: (1) Extract specific information from multiple documents into a table, (2) Compare clauses or provisions across contracts, (3) Create a document review matrix with source citations. Triggers on: 'tabular review', 'document matrix', 'extract from documents', 'compare across documents', 'review multiple contracts'.
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).
Contract Review for Tech and general contract. Smart redflagging feature to show the problems.
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'.
Run an attorney-facing knockout/availability trademark search across the United States and Canada. Use whenever a user (founder, client, or attorney) asks whether a brand, mark, name, logo, slogan, or product name is \"available,\" \"free to use,\" \"clearable,\" or \"already taken\" — or asks Claude to \"search the trademark register,\" \"check USPTO,\" \"check CIPO,\" \"do a knockout search,\" \"clearance search,\" \"availability search,\" or \"see if [mark] is trademarked.\" Trigger even when the user phrases it casually (\"can I call my company X?\", \"is this name taken?\"). Covers federal USPTO (TESS/TSDR), federal Canada (CIPO), common-law/web/state, and WIPO Madrid international. Output is a knockout availability memo with green/yellow/red verdict for attorney review. Includes professional-responsibility gating (AI-use disclosure, conflict check, scope confirmation) before substantive analysis. Not legal advice — produces work product for attorney sign-off.
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.
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.
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.
Verification-first methodology for the UNMIK Regulation 64 Panels of the Kosovo district courts (2000–2008). Citations are verified against UNMIK/EULEX archives and legal-tools.org. Keeps the Reg. 64 Panels distinct from the Kosovo Specialist Chambers, and clarifies that Reg. 2000/64 permitted (did not impose) internationally-majority panels. Research aid, not legal advice. Part of the open-source \"Skills for International Justice\" library — methodology: github.com/jeannesulzer/international-criminal-tribunals-skills
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.
Claude Skills — questions
Answers built from the skills we actually parsed.