Claude Skills by sunyifeisb-art

中国法下采矿权纠纷的普通人问答skill，背后是人民法院案例库2个入库案例提炼的裁判规则。用于回答采矿权、无权出让、合同效力审查、赔偿责任、压覆采矿区、矿业权人等问题。始终以普通人问答体验为中心，根据用户问题自然回答，不扮演法官，不写律师代理意见。当用户问采矿权纠纷怎么判等问题时触发。

中国法下采矿权转让合同纠纷的普通人问答skill，背后是人民法院案例库1个入库案例提炼的裁判规则。用于回答采矿权转让合同、合同成立、合同生效、合同解除、未经批准、迟延履行等问题。始终以普通人问答体验为中心，根据用户问题自然回答，不扮演法官，不写律师代理意见。当用户问采矿权转让合同纠纷怎么判等问题时触发。

中国法下金融衍生品种交易纠纷的普通人问答skill，背后是人民法院案例库3个入库案例提炼的裁判规则。用于回答金融衍生品种交易、汇率掉期、反向交易、公允价值、强制平仓、过错程度等问题。始终以普通人问答体验为中心，根据用户问题自然回答，不扮演法官，不写律师代理意见。当用户问金融衍生品种交易纠纷怎么判等问题时触发。

中国法下铁路运输损害责任纠纷的普通人问答skill，背后是人民法院案例库1个入库案例提炼的裁判规则。用于回答铁路运输损害责任、侵权责任、警示义务、免责抗辩等问题。始终以普通人问答体验为中心，根据用户问题自然回答，不扮演法官，不写律师代理意见。当用户问铁路运输损害责任纠纷怎么判等问题时触发。

中国法下银行卡纠纷的普通人问答skill，背后是人民法院案例库6个入库案例提炼的裁判规则。用于回答银行卡、网络盗刷、借记卡、资金归集、电子银行业务、安全保障义务等问题。始终以普通人问答体验为中心，根据用户问题自然回答，不扮演法官，不写律师代理意见。当用户问银行卡纠纷怎么判等问题时触发。

中国法下隐私权、个人信息保护纠纷的普通人问答skill，背后是人民法院案例库4个入库案例提炼的裁判规则。用于回答履行合同所必需、个人信息保护、隐私权、侵权、邻里、可视门铃等问题。始终以普通人问答体验为中心，根据用户问题自然回答，不扮演法官，不写律师代理意见。当用户问隐私权、个人信息保护纠纷怎么判等问题时触发。

中国法下集成电路布图设计专有权权属、侵权纠纷的普通人问答skill，背后是人民法院案例库4个入库案例提炼的裁判规则。用于回答侵害集成电路布图设计专有权、独创性、专有权撤销、裁定驳回起诉、另行起诉、合法来源等问题。始终以普通人问答体验为中心，根据用户问题自然回答，不扮演法官，不写律师代理意见。当用户问集成电路布图设计专有权权属、侵权纠纷怎么判等问题时触发。

中国法下集成电路布图设计合同纠纷的普通人问答skill，背后是人民法院案例库2个入库案例提炼的裁判规则。用于回答专有权、独创性、集成电路布图设计、权利基础、权利人选择、集成电路布图设计合同等问题。始终以普通人问答体验为中心，根据用户问题自然回答，不扮演法官，不写律师代理意见。当用户问集成电路布图设计合同纠纷怎么判等问题时触发。

中国法下非机动车交通事故责任纠纷的普通人问答skill，背后是人民法院案例库2个入库案例提炼的裁判规则。用于回答非机动车交通事故责任、未成年子女侵权、离异夫妻、共同承担侵权责任、新就业形态、骑手等问题。始终以普通人问答体验为中心，根据用户问题自然回答，不扮演法官，不写律师代理意见。当用户问非机动车交通事故责任纠纷怎么判等问题时触发。

中国法下预约合同纠纷的普通人问答skill，背后是人民法院案例库2个入库案例提炼的裁判规则。用于回答预约合同、本约合同、损害赔偿、违约责任、商品房预约合同认购书、合同效力审查等问题。始终以普通人问答体验为中心，根据用户问题自然回答，不扮演法官，不写律师代理意见。当用户问预约合同纠纷怎么判等问题时触发。

中国法下饲养动物损害责任纠纷的普通人问答skill，背后是人民法院案例库4个入库案例提炼的裁判规则。用于回答饲养动物损害责任、赔偿责任、禁止饲养、危险动物、孕妇、终止妊娠等问题。始终以普通人问答体验为中心，根据用户问题自然回答，不扮演法官，不写律师代理意见。当用户问饲养动物损害责任纠纷怎么判等问题时触发。

辅助中国大陆行政机关法律工作人员，根据一段行政案情，按行政法基本原则进行价值判断、利益衡量，并形成倾向性裁量结论。

当AI智能体需要处理以下情形时触发本技能： 1. 当前案件/问题在现行法律中没有直接、明确的规定（法律漏洞）； 2. 需要参考已有判例、相似案件或相近法律规范来推导当前问题的处理方案； 3. 用户明确要求"参照""比照""类推适用"某一规范或案例； 4. 在法律论证中需要以"相似案件相似处理"（Like cases should be treated alike）原则支撑结论； 5. 需要评估两个或多个案件/规范之间的相似性与差异性，以判断能否进行类比； 6. 在合同解释、侵权责任认定、行政处罚裁量等场景中，需要借助类似情形的处理经验形成论证。 本技能的核心是：识别相似性基础（tertium comparationis），论证类比的正当性，并在此基础上得出合理的法律结论。

当AI智能体需要将法律推理结果组织为完整、自洽、有说服力的论证结构时触发此技能。 典型触发场景包括但不限于： - 撰写法律意见书、代理词、辩护词、答辩状等法律文书中的论证部分 - 回答用户提出的复杂法律问题，需要多步骤推理并呈现结论 - 对争议焦点进行系统性分析，需要构建从事实到法律到结论的完整推理路径 - 反驳对方观点时，需要构建替代性论证链条 - 对多个法律问题进行综合分析，需要确保各论证之间逻辑一致、互不矛盾 - 在法律研究备忘录中呈现分析结论 触发信号关键词：论证、分析、推理、为什么、证明、理由、论述、阐述观点、法律分析

当AI智能体完成一段法律推理或论证后，需要对该推理结论进行自我评估，判断论证的整体强度与置信度，识别并标注推理链条中的薄弱环节。 触发条件包括但不限于： - 完成法律分析后需要给出结论可靠性评级 - 用户明确要求评估某一论证的说服力或可靠性 - 存在多个竞争性法律解释需要比较论证强度 - 推理过程中涉及不确定因素（事实不明、法律空白、争议观点）需要标注 - 为决策者提供风险提示，说明结论的局限性 - 对己方或对方的法律论证进行攻防强度评估 - 在法律意见书、备忘录等文书中需要附加置信度说明

<one sentence — the procedural / framing gap this skill closes for *this class of work* (e.g., "reviewing corporate authorization documents for a credit-facility closing across multi-entity, multi-jurisdiction guarantor groups"). Do not mention specific dollar amounts, percentages, named entities, verbatim quotes, or jurisdiction- / statute- / entity-type-specific citations that you only know to mention because you read *this* scenario's documents. The description should read like the title o...

Closes gaps in product-market separation, geographic-market framing, hot-document identification, and HSR filing strategy memo production for acquisition antitrust review.

Closes gaps in identifying compound interaction risks across protective order provisions, citing the relevant court’s prior rulings on contested issues, and making concrete recommendations with legal grounding.

Closes gaps in deal-structure antitrust risk analysis including hell-or-high-water provision adequacy, reverse termination fee sufficiency, outside date feasibility, and hot-document identification.

Closes gaps in organizing issues within a recognized antitrust compliance evaluation framework, identifying high-risk personnel categories requiring specialized training, and connecting material compliance events to program update obligations.

Closes gaps in independent arithmetic verification of concentration calculations, identification of methodology differences that explain divergent results, and cross-examination vulnerability assessment.

Closes gaps in cross-jurisdictional leniency comparison including limitations analysis, sequential-cooperation mechanics, individual applicant strategy, and sequencing recommendations for a board-ready memo.

Closes gaps in remedy deviation identification, preference for structural over behavioral remedies, and concrete recommendations for remedy improvements tied to relevant precedent decisions.

Supports pre-notification briefing papers for cross-border merger control by structuring multi-jurisdiction filing analysis, vertical foreclosure review, gun-jumping risk screening, and privilege-aware document handling.

Draft a federal antitrust complaint by pleading plausible facts, tying allegations to source documents at a categorical level, organizing claims by theory of liability, and requesting appropriate relief.

Drafts two separate antitrust compliance deliverables, covering the principal competition-law frameworks, providing issue-specific guidance for compliance risks identified in the source materials, and maintaining a clear distinction between per se and rule-of-reason analysis throughout.

Closes gaps in structural versus behavioral remedy justification, licensing term specificity, crown jewel provision structure, purchaser criteria adequacy, and procedural provisions commonly required in merger remedy commitments.

Closes gaps in identifying antitrust risks in competitor confidentiality agreements, including information exchange, no-poach enforceability, clean-team protocols, interaction effects, and pre-clearance coordination risk.

Closes gaps in consent-decree compliance provisions, trigger-event specificity for remedy deadlines, crown jewel provision structure, retained jurisdiction, and firewall duration relative to any transitional services arrangement.

Closes gaps in complete proffer content including coordination event specificity, affected-commerce calculation methodology, Type A condition analysis, and individual participant identification.

Closes gaps in narrow vs. broad product market analysis, buyer-side harm, and hot-document identification in strategic planning market definition memos.

Closes gaps in issue-specific protective order markup including in-house counsel competitive wall requirements, inter-agency sharing notice, clawback protection, and expert conflict screening mechanisms.

Draft a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss antitrust claims by testing plausibility, pleading sufficiency, market definition, agreement allegations, and source discipline at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Framing-only ablation — procedural and domain guidance for an HSR pre-notification briefing paper, with no rubric-derived numbers, quotes, or entity names. Used to test whether deal-triage framing alone drives the lift.

Closes gaps in the three-deliverable structure, objection framework, sensitive document flagging, and complete privilege log format requirements for a government investigative subpoena response.

Closes gaps in market-concentration analysis, hot-document identification with mandatory internal-document production, serial-acquisition risk analysis, spoliation assessment, and timing-model review.

Closes gaps in cross-document data reconciliation, pipeline-to-pipeline overlap analysis, merger control filing-threshold assessment, and clean team information distribution compliance.

Closes gaps in accurate title and division extraction for each custodian, employment status verification, and gap analysis between the preservation notice list and the full custodian universe identified in source documents.

Closes gaps in per-defendant procedural history analysis, rights of defense violations from supplementary objection omissions, fine calculation verification, and appeal ground identification with legal authority.

Supports multi-source reconciliation, concentration analysis, document-production review, and cumulative acquisition-risk assessment for an antitrust transaction memorandum.

Closes gaps in per-source revenue accuracy, sub-segment HHI computation, hot-document obligations, and explicit characterization of self-serving internal materials.

Supports extraction of complete pricing structures, temporal gap analysis between competitor contacts and later pricing changes, cost-justification assessment, and flagging of deletion or non-reply instructions.

Closes gaps in applying extracted precedent market definitions to the current transaction's specific products, identifying inconsistencies across precedents, and assessing concentration implications under each plausible definition.

Frame an antitrust and competition issue memorandum for a joint venture agreement by checking for restrictive covenants, pricing coordination, information exchange, pre-closing conduct, filing obligations, governance vetoes, and competition-law treatment of IP sharing.

Closes gaps in damages methodology critique with corrected calculation, foreclosure percentage computation, statute of limitations date analysis, and market concentration correction.

Closes gaps in econometric specification critique including residual diagnostics, structural-break testing, methodological linkage to prior exclusion history, and consistency analysis between affected-commerce measures and market-share evidence.

Closes gaps in privilege survival analysis, data preservation and disclosure obligations, oral testimony scheduling, information-exchange assessment, and petition grounds.

Closes gaps in buyer viability assessment against applicable antitrust agency standards, crown jewel structural analysis, revenue-at-risk quantification from customer change-of-control provisions, and certification timing as a market access barrier.

Closes gaps in a multi-deliverable structure, market-level concentration analysis, hot-document and HSR production identification, coordinated effects analysis, and entry barrier assessment.

Evaluates a counterparty redline of an arbitration agreement provision-by-provision and for interaction effects, playbook compliance, and enforcement consequences.