192 plugins from public Claude Code marketplaces. Each one bundles skills, slash commands, agents, hooks or MCP servers that install together.
Showing 192 plugins that match these filters.
testland-qatestland/qa1
scenario-skillsscenario-labs/skills1
moss-skillsbrsbl/moss-skills1
muto-atlasB7Kompirine/muto-atlas1Submit the repo with .claude-plugin/marketplace.json and we list every plugin.
Submit marketplaceMap the full set of legal obligations based on role and risk tier under the EU AI Act, producing an actionable compliance matrix with RACI assignments, implementation priorities, GDPR cross-references, and a phased implementation roadmap.
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.
Structured NIS2 compliance assessment covering scope classification (Annex I/II, size thresholds, DORA/CIR checks), gap analysis across all 10 Art. 21 risk management measures with 0–4 maturity scoring and ISO 27001 references, and a prioritized compliance roadmap. Deep German BSIG-neu coverage (BSI registration, § 30/32/38, incident reporting, Nachweispflicht) plus high-level jurisdiction profiles for Italy, France, Netherlands, Austria, and Spain. Built on ENISA guidance and BSI #nis2know packages.
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
Guide for drafting cookie policies compliant with GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive. Includes CNIL 2020 recommendations, a reference template, and best practices. Use when drafting or revising a cookie policy for a website or application.
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.
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.
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, vote
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.
Multi-jurisdictional legal research and risk assessment using the Legal Data Hunter MCP (40+ countries, 13M+ documents). Use when the user asks about law across multiple countries, comparative law, cross-border regulatory analysis, or case law/legislation in any European or other covered jurisdiction. Triggers on jurisdictional comparison, cross-border risk, multi-country compliance, GDPR enforcement across member states, or Legal Data Hunter references. Also handles single non-French jurisdiction research. For French-only law, prefer goodlegal-research.
Practitioner skill for 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.
Knowledge-base / wiki framework with skills for ingestion, query, and lint. Build a structured, citable corpus with cross-references and concept pages.
Load and performance testing with k6 and JMeter, Lighthouse CI for Web Vitals, SLO-driven load plans, and performance budget gates. Covers tool choice and load profiles (with Gatling and Locust references), per-interaction INP budgets, flame-graph analysis, and database query-plan analysis.
operations-resilienceTurn a blank brief into references, options someone can choose between, and a moodboard the next batch runs from.
Skills for using Claude Code with mossnotes.app notes, packaged for reference use and customization.
Ground truth for FiveM/GTA V development. 24 offline data layers built from your own GTA V install and FiveM server: natives with apiset resolution and a Lua linter, archetypes, world placements, vanilla animation names, skeleton bone tags, vehicles, weapon components, peds, MLO interiors, embedded lights, weather timecycles, and your server's framework API. It checks your own files before the game sees them, decodes and edits prop lights against a measured vanilla reference, and covers parallax shaders and vanilla interior measurements. Nothing is guessed; a file that could not be inspected is never reported as clean.
development10 working methods for documentation: api-reference-docs, changelog-writing, code-documentation, docs-as-code, and more
Self-contained production skill plus on-demand reference skill for Chinese-narration recaps from supported video files: local Python/ffmpeg; remote Xiaomi MiMo ASR, VLM, and default TTS; optional Fish Audio TTS with a separate API key or a self-hosted HTTP TTS endpoint; final playback review required.
Find your unknowns before, during, and after implementation: field-guide (router), blindspot-pass, design-directions, interview-me, reference-hunt, implementation-plan, implementation-notes, pitch-explainer, change-quiz
workflowVerifies UK case-law citations, pinpoint references and quotations against the official public register — The National Archives' Find Case Law — and statutory references against legislation.gov.uk, before a document that cites them is relied on, served or filed. Every check returns a graded verdict: VERIFIED, MISMATCH (the citation resolves to a different case — the classic AI miscitation), NOT ON REGISTER, OUTSIDE COVERAGE (the register cannot answer — absence proves nothing), or UNCHECKABLE (a law-report citation). The grading exists because there are two ways to get this wrong: citing a case that does not exist, and accusing a real case of not existing. Use when asked to check citations, verify a case exists, confirm a quotation is verbatim, check a pinpoint paragraph, audit a draft's authorities, screen a document for hallucinated cases, or check a statutory provision is in force. Not a substitute for reading the judgment: existence is not authority.
