القائمة
Use when you need to generate tracked changes in Word documents from diff output, apply redlines from AI agents to DOCX files, or convert text diffs into native Word revisions.
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
EU AI Act Quick Assessment — fast 15-25 minute triage for preliminary classification and compliance assessment. This skill should be used when the user asks to "do a quick AI Act assessment", "check if the AI Act applies to us", "run a preliminary classification", "do an AI Act triage", "quick check", "preliminary assessment", "Schnellprüfung", "Ersteinschätzung", or needs a fast initial assessment before committing to full analysis.
Use this skill when the user needs to review, draft, or redline a Data Processing Agreement (DPA / Auftragsverarbeitungsvertrag / AVV) under Art. 28 GDPR, or to prepare a Joint Controller Arrangement under Art. 26 GDPR. Triggers include "DPA", "AVV", "Auftragsverarbeitung", "Auftragsverarbeitungsvertrag", "Art. 28 contract", "data processing agreement", "processor agreement", "Art. 26 arrangement", "joint controller agreement", "JCA", "review this DPA", "draft a DPA", "redline this DPA", or any request involving controller-processor / joint-controller contracting. Supports bilingual output (DE/EN), both controller- and processor-side perspectives, and both quick (Art. 28(3)(a)–(h) coverage) and negotiation-grade (clause-by-clause risk scoring) review depths.
NIS2 Compliance Navigator — scope classification, Art. 21 gap analysis (0-4 maturity scoring), and compliance roadmap under EU Directive 2022/2555 with deep German BSIG-neu coverage and profiles for Italy, France, Netherlands, Austria, Spain. Use when: (1) User mentions "NIS2", "NIS-2", "BSIG", "BSIG-neu", "NIS2UmsuCG", "Cyberbeveiligingswet", "Loi Résilience", "NISG", "decreto legislativo 138", (2) User asks if their organization falls under NIS2 or needs a cybersecurity compliance assessment, (3) User mentions essential/important entities, Annex I/II, BSI registration, § 30 BSIG, incident reporting, management body liability, supply chain security, (4) User wants a NIS2 gap analysis, readiness assessment, or compliance roadmap, (5) User asks about NIS2 fines, enforcement, or Nachweispflicht, (6) User asks about NIS2 in any EU Member State.
Draft GDPR/DSGVO-compliant privacy notices as .docx for any EU/EEA jurisdiction and audience. Use when user asks to create a privacy policy/notice, mentions "Datenschutzerklärung", "politique de confidentialité", "privacy notice", needs Art. 13/14 disclosures, AI Act transparency, cookie policy, or notices for applicants ("Bewerber-Datenschutz"), employees ("Beschäftigten-Datenschutz"), B2B partners, or B2C customers. Covers DE (DSGVO+BDSG+TDDDG), FR (RGPD+LIL+LCEN), AT, IT, ES, NL, BE, IE, UK GDPR. Five notice types: Website/App, Applicant, Employee, Business Partner, B2C Customer.
Use whenever the user is working on document production in international arbitration: drafting requests to produce, raising or replying to objections, or preparing the schedule for the tribunal to rule on. Builds and maintains the request-to-produce table (the Redfern Schedule) for the requesting party, the producing party, or the tribunal. Applies the IBA Rules (2020) Article 3.3 admissibility checklist and the Article 9.2 objection grounds, raises a content-based political and institutional sensitivity prompt for State or state-owned parties, and writes an internal memo flagging the user's own weak requests. Trigger it even when the user does not say Redfern Schedule but mentions requests to produce, document production in an arbitration, IBA objections, Article 3.3 or 9.2, or a tribunal ruling on production. It enforces form and does not decide materiality or whether an objection will succeed.
Apply the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (NIST AI 100-1 + the NIST AI 600-1 Generative AI Profile) to a specific AI system, governance question, or impact assessment. Three modes — consult, governance plan, full assessment — all cite Subcategories (`GOVERN 1.1`) and Profile Action IDs (`GV-1.2-001`) verbatim. Use when the user mentions the AI RMF, NIST RMF, NIST AI 100-1, NIST AI 600-1, GenAI Profile, the four functions (Govern / Map / Measure / Manage), the trustworthy AI characteristics, the 12 GAI risks (confabulation, harmful bias, information integrity, CBRN, data privacy, etc.), or asks "what does NIST say about X" for an AI system.
| name | redlines |
| description | Use when you need to generate tracked changes in Word documents from diff output, apply redlines from AI agents to DOCX files, or convert text diffs into native Word revisions. |
| author | Hou Fu Ang |
| jurisdiction | SG |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| last_reviewed | 2026-05 |
| last_reviewed_by | LegalQuants (QA remediation) |
| tags | ["word","docx","tracked-changes","redlines","document-processing"] |
Takes diff output (from any source) and applies it to a DOCX as native Word tracked changes. Built by a practising Singapore counsel who needed deterministic document transformation.
DOCX with Word native tracked changes (insertions in blue, deletions in strikethrough)
import { applyRedlines } from '@houfu/redlines';
const result = applyRedlines({
originalDoc: './contract.docx',
modifiedText: 'modified contract text here',
author: 'LQClaw'
});
result.toDocx('./contract-redlined.docx');
Audience: legal engineers and counsel comfortable invoking a JavaScript library from a workflow. Not a self-service tool for a reviewing partner and not intended for non-technical users. The judgment as to which edits to apply sits upstream of this skill; this skill only carries them into the DOCX.
Work shape: Bounded Transactional primitive. Text-in (or diff-in) → DOCX-out. The transform is mechanical. It is not a redline reviewer, not a redline generator, and not a substantive review step.
This skill provides legal support, not legal advice. Producing a tracked-changes DOCX is mechanical document processing; the redlined output is a draft, not a vetted lawyer redline and not signed-off work product. A successful run means "the supplied edits were carried into the file as Word revisions" — not "these edits are correct" and not "this draft is fit to send."
Privilege and metadata exposure. Tracked changes carry author metadata into the document. The author field in the call (e.g., 'LQClaw') is written into the Word XML alongside revision timestamps and is preserved in the saved file. Anyone who opens the DOCX (counterparty, opposing counsel, recipient on production) can read it. Stance: AI authorship should be visible — do not mask AI-generated revisions behind a lawyer's name or firm identity. Treat the redlined DOCX as a draft document and assess data flow with the firm before routing draft files externally; redlines on privileged drafts can be discoverable and can affect privilege if circulated. Confirm a metadata-scrubbing step before any external delivery and confirm with the firm that the upstream diff and the source DOCX may be processed by the calling pipeline.
Accountability. Output is a mechanical transform of an upstream diff. A qualified, named lawyer must read the redlined DOCX page-by-page before any client or counterparty delivery. The skill does not stamp provenance, does not maintain an audit log, and does not designate an owner of the output — the calling workflow must do all three.
Stop and route to the responsible lawyer when:
Original author: Hou Fu Ang. Technical content (When to Use, How It Works, Input, Output, Usage, Key Design Decisions, Limitations) preserved verbatim.
LegalQuants applied QA remediation against the Legal Skill Design Framework on 2026-05-11 in response to the QA report at /tmp/qa-results/redlines.md (verdict: MATERIAL CONCERNS — three legal failure modes unaddressed). Added: version, last_reviewed, last_reviewed_by in frontmatter; Audience and Work Shape; Scope and Legal Use covering the three mandatory legal failure modes (advice-vs-support, privilege/metadata, accountability), with specific treatment of Word XML author metadata persistence and the stance that AI authorship should be visible rather than masked; Confidence Bands tied to document shape; Out of Scope ("does NOT do"); Escalation triggers. No changes to the technical instructions or the @houfu/redlines API.