AI Agent Workflow Collection

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.

EU AI Act Knowledge Engine — authoritative regulatory Q&A grounded in 70 official EU source documents (including the 2026 Commission draft guidelines on Art. 6 high-risk classification — general principles, Annex I, Annex III). Answers any question about the AI Act with article-level citations from the full regulation text, Commission guidelines, EDPB/EDPS opinions, codes of practice, harmonised standards, FRIA guides, incident templates, and sector-specific guidance. This skill should be used when the user asks about the "EU AI Act", "AI Act regulation", "Regulation 2024/1689", "KI-Verordnung", asks to "explain an AI Act article", "what does Article X say", "AI Act requirements", "AI Act penalties", "AI Act timeline", "GPAI obligations", "high-risk AI", "prohibited AI practices", "AI Act and GDPR", "fundamental rights impact assessment", "AI Act standards", "AI Act national implementation", "AI literacy", "serious incident reporting", "Digital Omnibus", "AI regulatory sandbox", or any question about EU artificial intelligence regulation. Also triggers on German terms: "KI-Gesetz", "KI-Verordnung", "Hochrisiko-KI", "KI-Kompetenz", "Grundrechte-Folgenabschaetzung", "GPAI-Verhaltenskodex". For assessment workflows that produce a classification decision rather than a knowledge answer, offer to run a structured risk-tier classification in-session.

This skill builds a structured audit trail of an AI-assisted task: what the tool was asked to do, what materials it was given, what it produced, how the output was verified, and what was ultimately relied upon. It documents the workflow for supervision and later review without ruling on privilege or disclosure, so the record stays accurate rather than self-serving.

Turn an interpretive-ambiguity audit of a legal text — contract, statute, regulation, or judicial opinion — into a polished deliverable. Produces a multi-page website (default), a single-page interactive site, a Microsoft Word document, a PowerPoint deck, or a LaTeX/PDF. Use whenever a user has a stress-test result, ambiguity audit, or "where will this be litigated" scenarios and wants to publish, present, or share them. Triggers on "publish the audit," "make a report from this," "turn this into a website / deck / brief / Word doc," "make a Netlify site," "build slides of these ambiguities," "render the scenarios," "package this stress test," "produce a LaTeX version," and similar. Pairs with the ambiguity-stress-test skill (the underlying analysis) but works on any structured or semi-structured ambiguity analysis. Visual design is opinionated but the user can override colors, fonts, and brand label. Most formats need Python and a writable filesystem; single-file HTML works where the host has neither.

Adversarially stress-tests a legal text — a contract, statute, regulation, or judicial opinion — for interpretive ambiguity: it finds the seams where the people governed by it will later disagree about what it means and turns each into a concrete dispute scenario with both sides' arguments, the likely outcome, and a fix. Use it whenever someone wants to pressure-test, red-team, audit, or find weak spots, loopholes, gaps, ambiguities, or drafting problems in a legal document; whenever a drafter wants to tighten a contract, statute, regulation, or opinion before it issues; whenever a litigator wants to mine an opinion or contract for arguments; or whenever someone hands over a legal text and asks where it will be fought over or for issue-spotting.

Audits a website for compliance with Azerbaijan's Law on Personal Data No. 998-IIIQ and, where applicable, EU GDPR plus ePrivacy/cookie consent rules. Inventories the privacy documents present (privacy policy, cookie policy, cookie banner, consent flow, controller and DPO contact, data subject rights channel, cross-border transfer disclosures, AZ operator-registration references) and scores each against the applicable statutory requirements. Produces a dual-layer report: a plain-language traffic-light summary for business owners plus a clause-by-clause findings table with article-level citations for lawyers. Assessment-only — no drafting. Use whenever the user shares a URL or privacy/cookie policy text for an AZ-based or AZ-targeted site; also when the user mentions an .az domain, Law 998, the AZ State Register, ePrivacy, an Art. 27 EU representative, or asks "is my site GDPR compliant", "do I need to register as an operator in Azerbaijan", or "is our cookie banner lawful" — even without the word "audit".

Generate templated responses for common legal inquiries and identify when situations require individualized attention.

Produces detailed law-school case briefs of United States judicial opinions in a fixed nine-section structure: memory jogger, facts, procedural history, judicial votes, holding, opinion-by-opinion analysis, five future-application hypotheticals, critique, and verified key quotations. Also builds vote tables, cross-case consistency tables, perspective-based critiques, and LaTeX in article, Beamer and casebook-chapter formats. Use whenever someone asks to brief a case, analyse or explain an opinion, summarise a decision for students, generate hypotheticals from a holding, critique a judgment, tabulate how justices voted, or convert case analysis to LaTeX. Triggers on "brief this case", "case brief", "explain the holding", "what did the court hold", "hypotheticals based on", "critique this opinion", "vote table", "Beamer presentation", "chapter brief", and on any reference to a judicial opinion or Supreme Court decision in a teaching context. Requires web search to verify quotations, votes and holdings.

California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) compliance advisor — business threshold analysis, consumer rights fulfillment (access,…

Builds a litigation chronology from the disclosure bundle itself — every entry attributed to its source document, behind a CPR 31.22 implied-undertaking check, because documents disclosed in English proceedings may only be used for those proceedings. Adds a privilege screen and case-theory significance tagging, so the output is court-facing work product, not a loose timeline. Use when the user asks to build a chronology or timeline from a disclosure bundle, a matter file, or witness statements, or says 'build the chron', 'what happened when', or needs a Statement of Facts ready timeline.

Expert CIS Controls v8 (CIS Top 18) advisor — implementation group scoping (IG1/IG2/IG3), control gap assessments, safeguard-level guidance, asset inventory, software…

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.

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.

Expert CMMC 2.0 (Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification) advisor for US defense contractors and subcontractors in the Defense Industrial Base (DIB).

Navigate privacy regulations (GDPR, CCPA), review DPAs, and handle data subject requests.

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.

Review contracts against your organization's negotiation playbook, flagging deviations and generating redline suggestions.

Guide for drafting cookie policies compliant with GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive. Includes CNIL 2020 recommendations, a reference template, and best practices.

Writes the formal letter you send before suing someone in a civil case in England & Wales — the Letter Before Claim that starts the pre-action clock. The part it gets right is which pre-action protocol applies — debt, professional negligence, housing disrepair, personal injury, or the default Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct — each of which has its own rules a generic letter misses (the 30-day debt window, the professional-negligence preliminary-notice step). It also flags the limitation deadline for a solicitor to confirm rather than stating it as fact. Built for litigation juniors, in-house counsel, and small firms without a precedent to copy. Use when the user says 'draft an LBC', 'letter before claim', 'pre-action letter', 'pre-action protocol', or needs to start the pre-action clock before issuing a civil claim. Verify the current protocol before sending.

Use when a user asks what the EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) means for their product, whether and when they must report a vulnerability or incident, or what a specific…

Analyzes how multiple regulations interact for a specific product, service, or business model.

Expert CSRD (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, EU 2022/2464) compliance advisor.

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

Works out which documents you have to hand over to the other side in a civil case in England & Wales, and builds the formal list. The part it gets right that trips people up is which disclosure regime applies — Practice Direction 57AD (the Disclosure Pilot, now permanent in the Business and Property Courts, with its Models A–E) or standard disclosure under CPR Part 31 everywhere else. It picks the regime, chooses a Model per issue, structures the Disclosure Review Document, and drafts the disclosure certificate for the party to sign personally. Built for litigation juniors, in-house counsel, and small teams without a precedent bank. Use when the user says 'disclosure list', 'PD 57AD', 'Model C', 'extended disclosure', 'List of Documents', 'N265', or needs to work out what must be disclosed.