5,205 plugins from public Claude Code marketplaces. Each one bundles skills, slash commands, agents, hooks or MCP servers that install together.
Submit the repo with .claude-plugin/marketplace.json and we list every plugin.
Submit marketplaceBuilds a high-fidelity interactive legal assessment as a single self-contained HTML artifact. Output includes a live countdown timer, contract review tasks with hover-annotated problem clauses, candidate answer textareas, model answers hidden behind reveal blocks, scenario-based legal memo tasks, strategy and function-building questions, and a pre-submission checklist that encodes the marking criteria. Use when the user needs to (1) assess a legal candidate with a realistic timed exercise, (2) train or onboard junior lawyers using problem sets rather than doctrine, (3) help a candidate prepare for a real take-home assessment they are facing, (4) build educational materials for law students, in-house teams, or compliance training, or (5) produce scenario-based training modules on specific legal topics. Triggers on "legal test", "take-home", "mock exam", "contract redline exercise", "candidate assessment", "legal training exercise", "practice test", or similar phrasing even when informal
Génération assistée de QCM (questionnaires à choix multiples) avec export vers Moodle (GIFT, XML), Wooclap (Excel), Kahoot! et Word. Supporte QCM légers (ludiques) et approfondis (évaluatifs), à choix unique et réponses multiples.
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
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 site, a self-contained single-file HTML page, a Word document, a PowerPoint deck, or LaTeX source. 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. Design is opinionated but colors, fonts and brand label are overridable. Most formats need Python and a writable filesystem; single-file HTML works where
When your bar comes asking "show me how you billed AI-assisted work" — and ABA 512, Florida 24-1, California, New York, and DC all have opinions out — you need an artifact that survives review. billable-time produces it. From your Claude Code session logs, it drafts reviewable time entries plus a printable HTML audit packet with: SHA-256 chain of evidence (source files + matter.yml + active disclosure pack + verifiable artifact self-hash), attorney identity and signature block, a bar-opinion disclosure pack with starter language for five jurisdictions, and content-aware deterministic narratives derived from filename and tool shape — never from prompt text by default. The tool refuses to bill on its own. --strict mode refuses to ship the artifact if any audit invariant fails (broad routes, missing attorney, missing/unverified disclosure). Comes as a Node CLI and a self-contained browser version (no backend; JSONL never leaves the page). 15 invariant tests verify the contract. AGPL-3.0.
Operational billing execution for legal matters. Monthly bill prep and billing instructions, LC invoice review and disbursement treatment, client billing query responses, cashflow modelling, and leverage and burn analysis (staffing mix, predicted total cost, margin trajectory).
Build, monitor, and adjust fee budgets across the full matter lifecycle. At matter setup: translate scope into a phase-based fee estimate with contingency and AFA structure. In flight: run WIP reviews that explain variance, not just report it. When scope changes are confirmed: model the financial impact.
Collaboration platform configuration methodology for legal matter sites. Site architecture, workflow identification, dashboard design, data quality governance, and user adoption for SharePoint, Teams, and equivalent platforms. Outputs are platform-agnostic enough to brief IT or build simple automations.
Capture, structure, and recycle lessons from active and closed legal matters. Three modes: in-flight capture (triggered by scope changes, risk events, status updates), mid-matter review (phase gates or quarterly), and matter close retrospective. Lessons are formatted for immediate reuse, not filed and forgotten.
Approval cascade definition and tracking for multi-stakeholder document workflows. Internal review sequences, client approval workflows, regulatory review, overdue chasing with escalation logic, version control coordination, and cross-jurisdiction document dependencies.
Helps a lawyer build and use a personalized Legal Guidance Vault — a local folder of structured, privilege-marked entries capturing legal guidance they've given, searchable later by topic, person, or product. Use this skill when the user says "set up my vault," "archive this meeting/email/thread/doc," "log the guidance I gave on [topic]," "save my notes from [meeting]," "what did I say about [topic]," "find the time I advised [person] on [topic]," or "search my vault for [topic]." Runs a setup interview to learn the user's tool stack (meeting notes, calendar, email, docs, messaging, vault location), then generates a customized vault prompt they can reuse in any future Claude session to start archiving and retrieving guidance.
End-to-end external local counsel lifecycle management for multi-jurisdiction legal matters. LC selection criteria and capability assessment, engagement setup and instruction design, performance monitoring and check-in cadence, scope enforcement, and relationship escalation.
Matter scoping across the full pre-execution arc — organise client data into a structured brief, capture the agreed baseline, or reconstruct scope mid-flight. Use when making sense of client information before a proposal, scoping a new matter, running a kickoff, defining scope, mapping stakeholders, or inheriting a matter mid-flight.
Convert agreed scope into a structured matter plan — phases, workstreams, milestones, dependencies, owner assignments, and matter setup decisions. Use when planning a new matter, running a kickoff, building a workstream plan, structuring phases, or producing a plan to drive status reporting.
Prepare structured briefings for meetings with legal relevance and track resulting action items. Use when preparing for contract negotiations, board meetings, compliance reviews, or any meeting where legal context, background research, or action tracking is needed.
Reviews outside counsel invoices and related billing data for an in-house legal department, including LEDES or e-billing exports, OCGs, approved rates, discounts, budgets, AFAs, and staffing rules. Starts with internal comparisons before bringing in external data. Produces invoice review findings, MBR/QBR scorecards, dispute logs, and management reports. For demonstration purposes only and not professional advice.
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.
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.
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.
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.