5,232 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 marketplaceRédaction d'assignations en référé devant le tribunal de commerce ou des activités économiques pour le recouvrement de créances commerciales. Utiliser ce skill quand l'utilisateur demande de rédiger, préparer ou créer une assignation en référé pour obtenir le paiement d'une créance impayée (factures, prestations de services, ventes de marchandises, etc.) lorsque le débiteur n'a pas honoré ses obligations de paiement et qu'il n'existe pas de contestation sérieuse.
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.
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.
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.
This skill maps disclosure strategy from a case summary, pleading, chronology, or early case theory: the document categories that will matter, likely custodians, adverse material, evidential gaps, search themes, and the risks worth confronting early.
Assesses a legal argument, submission, or piece of structured reasoning from the perspective of a judge reading it cold under time pressure. Produces a structured seven-part assessment: what the case appears to be about, immediate points of confusion, what feels strong, what feels weak, what is assumed but unproved, a provisional confidence level (low/medium/high), and what would be needed to persuade. The skill does not rewrite, improve, or attack the argument — it tells you how it actually lands on a sceptical, experienced reader with no prior context. Works on skeleton arguments, witness statements, letters before action, position statements, academic articles, and non-legal structured reasoning.
Asesor experto en litigación civil latinoamericana bajo sistemas de derecho civil. Está diseñado para asistir a abogados litigantes, equipos legales internos y clientes directos con estrategia procesal, análisis de riesgos y orientación sobre el proceso civil en América Latina. Al final de cada sesión redacta un correo electrónico claro que resume los hallazgos para el cliente. Cinco modos de operación: 1) Estrategia: cómo enfocar el litigio, qué vía procesal elegir, cómo construir la posición del cliente. 2) Riesgo: evaluar viabilidad, probabilidades de éxito, prescripción, caducidad. 3) Proceso: etapas del proceso, plazos, recursos disponibles, pasos inmediatos. 4) Asesoría cliente: explicaciones claras para clientes. 5) Email al cliente: borrador automático de email al final de cualquier análisis.
A plugin for calendaring litigation and arbitration deadlines from scheduling orders. Scans scheduling orders and outputs in a calendar file for Outlook or Google Calendar. Also permits inviting other team members via calendar invites.
Analyzes legal disputes for mediation purposes — reviewing case materials (pleadings, contracts, correspondence, evidence), identifying contested issues, summarizing each party's position and interests, performing legal analysis of key issues, proposing mediation strategies or settlement directions, and preparing for mediation sessions. Use this skill whenever the user mentions mediation, dispute analysis, settlement, ADR, dispute resolution, party positions, caucus strategy, or asks to analyze a conflict between two or more parties with a resolution-oriented (rather than litigation-oriented) goal — including when they upload case files and ask for a structured breakdown of who wants what or how the case might settle, even when they don't explicitly say "mediation".
Act as experienced opposing counsel to attack, undermine, and expose weaknesses in a legal argument, submission, witness statement, or structured reasoning. Produces a six-part adversarial analysis: 1. A core theory of attack identifying the single most effective way to defeat the argument; 2. A reconstructed version of the opposing argument stripped of rhetoric to expose its fragility; 3. Primary lines of attack grouped by category (legal misstatement, evidential gaps, causation failures, internal inconsistency, over-reliance on assertion, procedural weakness); 4. An "if I were the judge" section showing how a sceptical tribunal would dismantle the argument; 5. Surgical strikes - 3 to 5 high-impact points ready for oral submissions; and 6. An analysis of what the argument is trying to hide. Written in formal, adversarial British English for a legally trained audience.
Tribunal-prep skill modeled on Neal Katyal's Nov 2025 SCOTUS tariffs argument and his AI sparring partner "Harvey." Five phases: (1) profile each decision-maker from prior opinions, questions, concurrences, and dissents — surface their doctrinal commitments and institutional concerns; (2) predict the bench — 3–7 likely questions per judge with the worry behind each, verbatim phrasing where confidence is high; (3) map escape routes — the narrowest holding each skeptical judge could sign without abandoning prior commitments; (4) spar adversarially — relentless follow-ups, calls out parroted lines, tracks which questions broke the lawyer; (5) hand the lawyer back to themselves with a < 150-word index card for the podium. The model is the sparring partner. The lawyer still wins the case. Use for oral argument, motion hearings, depositions, arbitrations, or stress-testing a brief before filing.
Adversarial premortem for England & Wales civil litigation - builds the strongest version of a case, then attacks it from four angles to find where it loses before opposing counsel does. Runs an adversarial premortem on a UK litigation matter. Builds the strongest version of the case, then attacks it from four angles — procedural, substantive, evidentiary, strategic — to find where it actually loses. Returns a ranked stress-test brief: failure scenarios, evidence inconsistencies, blind spots, mitigations, and one brutal one-sentence verdict. Use before issue, before settlement negotiations, before a litigation-funder pitch, or before deciding whether to take a case.
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.
Produces an adversarial attack on a legal argument that survives reply. Runs the opposing-counsel discipline twice: an unrestrained first pass, then the same instrument turned on that pass to cut every point that collapses under challenge - attacks on facts your own side has conceded, objections belonging to the wrong forum, 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 piece of structured legal reasoning when the output must be something you could stand up and say. Also use when an earlier adversarial review came back overlong, scattershot or padded with points you do not trust. Derived from Opposing Counsel Review by Larissa Meredith-Flister (Apache-2.0). Formal
Writes a settlement letter on the right footing — and warns you when marking it 'without prejudice' won't actually keep it out of court. A genuine settlement letter is normally protected (the judge can't see it), but only if the substance is a real attempt to settle, and even then there are exceptions. The skill picks the correct footing — without prejudice (WP), without prejudice save as to costs (WPSATC / Calderbank), or open — drafts the finished letter, and surfaces the Unilever v Procter & Gamble exceptions that get WP material admitted despite the label, which a plain template won't flag. Built for juniors and in-house counsel drafting a settlement or Calderbank offer who need the footing right the first time. Use when the user asks to draft a WP letter, a Calderbank, a settlement letter, or wants to know whether material is likely protected from disclosure.
NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) contract analysis for NCAA student-athletes from the athlete's perspective. Use when user says 'review this NIL contract', 'analyze this NIL deal', 'check this athlete agreement', 'review my NIL agreement', or uploads a PDF NIL contract for review. Identifies red flags, missing protections, and compliance issues. Produces a structured review memorandum with negotiation positions. Do NOT use for general contract review, employment agreements, non-NIL endorsements, or brand-side deal analysis.
U.S. customs and trade-law research assistant for HTS classification, CROSS ruling research, CIT/CAFC decision briefing, duty compilation (General + Special + Chapter 99 + AD/CVD + MPF/HMF), country of origin determination, FTA qualification, and end-to-end import compliance review. Triggers on product classification, tariff questions, customs rulings, trade remedy screening (Section 301/232/201), Partner Government Agency admissibility, and UFLPA forced-labor analysis. Produces attorney-reviewable draft work product with an enforced HTSUS authority hierarchy and explicit evidence ledger.
Analyze any OFAC or OFSI enforcement action — by URL, pasted text, or uploaded document — and produce a structured root cause analysis as a formatted Excel (.xlsx) spreadsheet. Use this skill whenever a user names, links to, pastes, or uploads an OFAC or OFSI enforcement action and asks for any of the following: root cause analysis, compliance gaps, what went wrong, lessons learned, organizational self-assessment, or remediation planning. Also trigger when a user asks "analyze this enforcement action", "what were the root causes", "turn this into a checklist", or "how do I make sure this doesn't happen to us". Outputs a single-sheet .xlsx table with six columns: Root Cause | What Went Wrong | How It Went Wrong | What Could Have Stopped It | Is my organization immune to this? (Yes/No/Partial) | Notes.
Generate a spreadsheet of test entries — newly designated names from OFAC, OFSI, and EU sanctions lists plus deliberate variations of those names — to validate that a sanctions screening system catches fresh designations and is tuned to the right fuzziness threshold. Use this whenever the user asks for sanctions list update test data, screening regression test data, screening QA, fuzzy match calibration, or wants to verify their screening lists are current. Trigger even if the user doesn't say 'screening' explicitly — phrases like 'test my sanctions list', 'check our SDN coverage', 'is my list up to date', or 'build me a regression set from the latest designations' should also invoke this skill.
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.
