Kesslernity

Reads a project or processing description and returns a DRAFT data protection impact assessment pack: processing description, necessity and proportionality questions, a risk table with blank rating cells, mitigations to consider and open questions. Never rates risk, determines the lawful basis or judges adequacy; the DPO assesses and signs. Works from descriptions, never personal data. Use when the user asks to "start a DPIA for the new monitoring tool", "draft a data protection impact assessment", "scaffold a DPIA from this processing description" or "what would the DPO need for a DPIA on this". Do not use for redacting or de-identifying a document, use document-deidentification-pass instead; do not use for working out what data an incident exposed, use data-incident-impact-brief instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Proposes redactions of personal identifiers in pasted text or an attached document (names, contact details, identification and account numbers, dates that identify, quasi-identifiers) and returns a DRAFT redacted copy with consistent placeholder tokens plus a redaction table stating what was replaced, where and why, with a confidence level and a blank reviewer decision per row. Use when the user asks to "redact the names in this document", "de-identify this transcript before we share it", "strip personal data from these notes", "anonymise this report for publication" or "what would need redacting here". Do not use for assessing a planned processing activity, use dpia-draft-pack instead; do not use for working out what data an incident exposed, use data-incident-impact-brief instead. Never declares a document anonymised, safe to release or compliant. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Turns a list of KPIs or metrics into a DRAFT definition sheet: one row per KPI with the name as stated, formula quoted from a source, source system, owner, refresh cadence, unit, filters and known caveats, with UNKNOWN in every cell no source fills and a gap list grouped by data owner. Never composes a formula, sets a target or names an owner the sources do not state. Use when the user asks to "define these KPIs", "build a metrics definition sheet", "document how each KPI is calculated", "which of our KPIs have no owner or formula" or "reconcile the two KPI lists". Do not use for the weekly numbers report, use kpi-weekly-report-writer instead; for field-level definitions of a table, use data-dictionary-builder; for logging a wrong figure as a defect, use data-quality-issue-log. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Reads one spreadsheet, CSV export or pasted table together with the user's question and drafts an insight pack: a data profile, observations cited to named columns and values and framed as leads, caveats, and suggested charts and follow-up analyses. Every figure carries the label "as read, verify in source"; correlation is never stated as causation. Use when the user asks to "profile this spreadsheet", "what does this data say", "find anomalies in this extract", "give me a first read on this CSV" or "summarise this table". Do not use for a purchase order log or spend extract, use purchase-order-anomaly-review instead; for actuals versus budget, use budget-variance-explainer instead; for a report that arrives by email on a schedule, use report-attachment-analyzer instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Turns reported data problems (messages, tickets, meeting notes, complaints) into one DRAFT issue log: one row per issue with the symptom as reported, dataset and fields named, reproduction steps, affected reports, first seen date, reporters, a suggested owner, and blank severity, root cause and status cells for the owner. Never asserts a root cause, severity or fix. Use when the user asks to "log these data issues", "turn these complaints about the numbers into an issue list", "build the data quality backlog", "which reports are hit by this data problem" or "write up the reproduction steps for this data bug". Do not use for exploring or profiling a dataset, use dataset-insight-pack instead; for an IT incident write-up, use incident-postmortem-drafter; for tracking fix actions once assigned, use corrective-action-tracker. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Builds a DRAFT data dictionary from a schema export, table definition, sample rows or a partial existing dictionary: one row per field with the name as stated, type as stated or observed, meaning quoted from the documentation supplied, owner, allowed values, and UNKNOWN wherever no source defines the field, plus a gap list for the data owner. Never infers a definition from a column name. Use when the user asks to "build a data dictionary for this table", "document these columns", "what does each field mean", "turn this schema export into a dictionary" or "fill in the field definitions from these documents". Do not use for profiling values or finding patterns in the data, use dataset-insight-pack instead; for metric definitions, use kpi-definition-sheet; for logging data defects, use data-quality-issue-log. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Proposes tag and number structures for the new lines and instruments in a P&ID draft according to the project's numbering procedures, checks every tag extracted from the PFD against the quoted procedure format, and lists cross-section identifier mismatches and the registry checks a human must run. Never invents a numbering convention, never alters a PFD tag and never assigns a sequence number the procedure reserves for the registry. Use when the user asks to "run the tagging and numbering section", "check the tags against the numbering procedure", "propose the tag structure for the new lines and instruments" or "list the registry checks before validation" after the process safety flags. Do not use for validating the four sections, use validation-and-review-package instead; do not use for instrument content, use instrumentation-and-control-enrichment. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Runs twice in a PFD to P&ID job. Part 1, before gate G3, validates the discipline proposals for provenance, UNKNOWN handling, conflicts, prohibited content and cross-section consistency and returns results and blocking items. Part 2, before gate G5, assembles the review package, with job header, gate record, every register and proposal, consolidated UNKNOWN list, feedback log and closing statement. Use when the user asks to "validate the enrichment", "run validation before G3", "assemble the review package" or "build the G5 package". Do not use for the readiness map, use pid-tool-readiness-mapping instead; do not use to produce a missing discipline section, use the discipline skill that owns it. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Data Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, data and AI governance risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CDO review", "pressure-test the data governance in this plan", "what would a CDO say about this", "check the metric definitions and data sources" or "prepare this for the data governance board". Do not use for security controls or third-party security risk, use ciso-reviewer instead; for contract, liability or regulatory terms, use general-counsel-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Financial Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, finance risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CFO review", "pressure-test the numbers in this business case", "what would a CFO say about this", "challenge the payback and run costs" or "prepare this for the investment committee". Do not use for delivery or capacity questions, use coo-reviewer instead; for architecture or vendor questions, use cto-reviewer; for positioning or demand, use cmo-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck, plan or restructuring paper in character as a Chief Human Resources Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, people and organisation risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CHRO review", "what would HR say about this", "pressure-test the people impact" or "prepare this for the people committee". Do not use for the employee representatives' own view of a plan, use works-council-reviewer instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Information Security Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review with a verdict, findings cited to specific passages, security and compliance risks and the five interrogation questions a real CISO would ask. Use when the user asks to "run a CISO review", "pressure-test the security of this plan", "what would our CISO say about this" or "check the privacy and third-party risk". Do not use for contract, liability or regulatory-interpretation reviews, use general-counsel-reviewer instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Technology Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to the exact passage, technology risks (architecture, build versus buy, vendor lock-in, security of design, engineering capacity), what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CTO review", "pressure-test the technical side of this plan", "what would a CTO ask about this" or "rehearse the technology seat before the review". Do not use for cash, payback or budget questions, use cfo-reviewer instead; for capacity and timeline questions, use coo-reviewer; for security controls, privacy or compliance, use ciso-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Customer Advocate archetype, the seat for paying customers not in the room, and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, customer-side risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a customer advocate review", "do a voice-of-the-customer pressure-test", "what would our customers say about this" or "what does this plan really ask of paying customers". Do not use for the product evidence or roadmap case, use cpo-reviewer instead; for revenue or pricing strategy, use cro-reviewer; for the staff who operate the change, use frontline-skeptic-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck, plan or contract summary in character as a General Counsel archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage or clause, legal risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Meeting preparation, not legal advice. Use when the user asks to "run a general counsel review", "what would legal say about this", "pressure-test the legal exposure in this deal" or "prepare me for the deal committee". Do not use for price, term, renewal or vendor leverage, use procurement-reviewer instead; for lawful basis and data flows, use cdo-reviewer; for security controls, use ciso-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as an Investor archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict whose conditions read as terms, findings that cite the exact passage, capital-allocation risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run an investor review", "what would an investor say about this", "pressure-test the capital case" or "prepare me for the investment committee". Do not use for internal budget, cost or finance-function review, use cfo-reviewer instead; for revenue forecast and pipeline, use cro-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or vendor contract in character as a Head of Procurement archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage or clause, commercial risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "review this from a procurement angle", "what would procurement say about this proposal", "pressure-test this vendor contract commercially", "find the holes before the sourcing committee" or "check the renewal terms like a Head of Procurement would". Do not use for liability, IP, regulatory or signing-authority questions, use general-counsel-reviewer instead; for whether the spend fits the budget, use cfo-reviewer; for vendor security, use ciso-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Drafts an architecture or design decision record (ADR) from the discussion notes, design review minutes, chat threads and diagram descriptions the user provides: context, decision drivers, options considered with arguments as stated, the decision as the group worded it, consequences and a review date, with every factual claim tagged evidenced, asserted or UNKNOWN so unsupported claims are marked for the author to substantiate. Use when the user asks to "write an ADR", "document the architecture decision", "record why we chose this design", "turn these design review notes into a decision record" or "draft the design decision log entry". Do not use for a business or governance decision with no technical design, use decision-memo-builder instead; for the change ticket that implements the decision, use change-request-pack. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Builds a DRAFT board paper skeleton from the sponsor's inputs: purpose, recommendation as the sponsor states it, options including do nothing, risks, financials exactly as provided, authority to decide and the decision sought, with every claim tagged evidenced, asserted or UNKNOWN so the sponsor sees what still needs support. Use when the user asks to "draft a board paper", "structure the committee paper", "prepare the decision paper for the investment committee", "skeleton the board memo" or "what goes in the paper for the audit committee". Do not use for a pre-read or briefing pack with no resolution sought, use executive-briefing-pack instead; to record a decision already taken in a discussion, use decision-memo-builder. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Turns one decision discussion (meeting transcript, chat thread, email chain or notes) into a DRAFT one-page decision memo: the decision as stated, status, options considered, evidence cited, dissent recorded verbatim, owner, effective date and review date, with UNKNOWN for anything the discussion did not settle. Use when the user asks to "write up the decision", "record what we decided", "capture the decision from this thread", "draft the decision memo" or "add this to the decision log". Do not use for full minutes or action items, use transcript-to-actions instead; for a technical design decision, use architecture-decision-record; for a paper seeking a decision not yet taken, use board-paper-skeleton. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Prepares a DRAFT leadership-meeting briefing pack from the reports, meeting notes, emails and dashboard exports the user provides: one headline, metrics exactly as stated with period and source, decisions the meeting must take, risks as reported, talking points with anticipated questions, a source reference on every line and UNKNOWN where the material is silent. Use when the user asks to "brief the leadership team", "prepare the exec pack", "pull together a briefing for the steering committee", "summarise these reports for the CEO", "what do I tell the board on Monday" or "build the pre-read for the management meeting". Do not use for a formal board or committee paper seeking a resolution, use board-paper-skeleton instead; for a personal one-page prep drawn from the user's own calendar and inbox, use meeting-prep-onepager. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Assembles a DRAFT capital expenditure request pack from the requester's inputs: business need, options including do nothing, costs exactly as provided, benefits as stated, risks, assumptions, budget status and the approvals route read from the organisation's own delegation of authority, with UNKNOWN for every missing figure, date or name. Use when the user asks to "prepare a capex request", "draft the business case for this equipment", "fill in the capital request form", "structure this investment proposal" or "what approvals does this spend need". Do not use for a board or committee decision paper, use board-paper-skeleton instead; for an IT change approval, use change-request-pack; to pressure-test a finished business case, use cfo-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Reads a cash forecast (spreadsheet, model export, pasted table or the narrative that accompanies it) and returns a DRAFT assumptions sheet: every assumption the forecast rests on, stated or implied by the figures, with its value as read, its location in the model, the cash lines it drives, its stated source or "not stated", the evidence that would test it, an owner, and one neutral challenge question, so a reviewer can work through the assumptions one by one. Use when the user asks to "list the assumptions behind this cash forecast", "what is this cash flow forecast assuming", "prepare the challenge questions for the treasury review", "pull out the drivers of the 13-week cash forecast" or "build an assumptions register for the liquidity plan". Do not use for actuals against budget by line, use budget-variance-explainer instead; do not use for the case behind a capital request, use capex-request-pack instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Builds a self-contained single-file HTML project dashboard (status banner, milestones table, risks heat list, decisions log, links) from the project tracker files the user attaches, pastes or holds in configured knowledge sources, and returns the complete HTML source in chat ready to save as dashboard-project-date.html. Use when the user asks to "build a dashboard for this project", "make a status page I can pin in the team channel", "give me an HTML overview of milestones, risks and decisions", "refresh the project dashboard from the tracker" or "turn these tracker files into a one-page visual summary". Do not use for creating or updating the tracker files or for the written weekly status report, use project-status-tracker instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.