본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

dpdpa-gdpr-review-parth-desai

Performs structured compliance review, clause redlining, and drafting suggestions for legal documents (privacy policies, data processing agreements, vendor and SaaS contracts) against India's DPDPA 2023 and the EU GDPR. Flags clauses as compliant, at-risk, or non-compliant with reasoning, and proposes ready-to-use model replacement language.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

실행 점수 미검증

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(6)

  • SKILL.md4.9 KB
  • demo/A1A2A3-Data-Protection-Policy.docx15.5 KB
  • README.md343 B
  • references/dpdpa-checklist.md4.4 KB
  • references/gdpr-checklist.md7.0 KB
  • references/model-clauses.md7.5 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

DPDPA & GDPR Legal Review Skill

Performs structured compliance review, redlining, and drafting suggestions on legal documents against DPDPA 2023 (India) and GDPR (EU/EEA). Produces annotated output with:

  • ✅ Compliant clauses
  • ⚠️ Suspect / at-risk clauses (with reasoning)
  • 🔴 Non-compliant / missing clauses
  • 📝 Redline suggestions (proposed replacement language)

Step 1 — Identify Scope

On receiving a document, determine:

  1. Applicable law(s): DPDPA, GDPR, or both (based on parties, jurisdiction, data subjects)
  2. Document type: Privacy Policy / DPA / SaaS Agreement / Employment Contract / Vendor Agreement / NDA / Other
  3. Data types mentioned: personal data, sensitive personal data (SPD), children's data, health, financial

If jurisdiction or parties are ambiguous, state your assumption clearly before proceeding.


Step 2 — Clause Extraction & Mapping

Parse the document into logical clause groups. Map each to the relevant legal obligation:

Clause GroupDPDPA ReferenceGDPR Reference
Purpose of processing§6 – NoticeArt. 13/14 – Transparency
Lawful basis / consent§6–§9Art. 6 / Art. 7
Data fiduciary / controller identity§8Art. 13(1)(a)
Data principal / subject rights§11–§14Art. 15–22
Data retention / erasure§8(7), §13Art. 5(1)(e), Art. 17
Cross-border transfer§16Art. 44–49
Children's data / parental consent§9Art. 8
Grievance / DPO contact§8(10), §13(5)Art. 37–39
Security obligations§8(5)Art. 32
Breach notification§8(6)Art. 33/34
Data processor obligations§8(2)–(3)Art. 28
Sub-processor / consent manager§3(5), §8(2)Art. 28(2)

Step 3 — Compliance Analysis

For each clause group, apply checks from references/dpdpa-checklist.md and references/gdpr-checklist.md.

Redline Format

When flagging or rewriting a clause, use this format:

──────────────────────────────────────────
CLAUSE: [Clause title / section number]
STATUS: ⚠️ SUSPECT | 🔴 NON-COMPLIANT | ✅ COMPLIANT
LAW: DPDPA §__ | GDPR Art. __
ISSUE: [Plain-language explanation of risk]
ORIGINAL TEXT:
  "[paste original clause]"
REDLINE SUGGESTION:
  "[Proposed replacement or addition]"
RISK LEVEL: HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW
──────────────────────────────────────────

Step 4 — Summary Report

After full analysis, output a Compliance Summary table:

## Compliance Summary

| Area | DPDPA Status | GDPR Status | Risk |
|------|-------------|------------|------|
| Consent mechanism | ⚠️ Weak | ✅ OK | Medium |
| Data retention | 🔴 Missing | 🔴 Missing | High |
| Children's data | N/A | ⚠️ Unclear | Medium |
| Cross-border transfer | ⚠️ Unaddressed | ✅ SCCs present | High |
| Breach notification | ✅ Present | ✅ Present | Low |
...

Overall Risk: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
Recommended Actions: [numbered list]

Step 5 — Drafting Suggestions

For every 🔴 NON-COMPLIANT or ⚠️ SUSPECT finding, provide:

  1. Why it's risky (legal exposure, penalty risk under DPDPA or GDPR)
  2. Model clause (ready-to-use replacement language)
  3. Optional: Alternative formulation if context is ambiguous

Reference references/model-clauses.md for standard clause templates.


Behaviour Rules

  • Never give definitive legal advice. Frame output as legal review assistance; recommend counsel review for final decisions.
  • Be specific: cite exact DPDPA section or GDPR article for every finding.
  • Flag children's data immediately — highest risk tier under both laws.
  • Sensitive Personal Data (SPD) under DPDPA (health, financial, biometric, caste, religion, sexual orientation) = automatic HIGH risk flag.
  • Special category data under GDPR Art. 9 = automatic HIGH risk flag.
  • If document is in mixed language (e.g., English + Hindi), analyse both portions.
  • Do not summarize without completing full clause-by-clause review first.

Reference Files

FileWhen to Read
references/dpdpa-checklist.mdDPDPA-specific clause checks
references/gdpr-checklist.mdGDPR-specific clause checks
references/model-clauses.mdReady-to-use replacement clause language

Load the relevant reference(s) before beginning analysis.

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Public-safe preliminary screen for challenges to the impartiality of an AI evaluator, LLM-as-a-judge, decision-support agent, or adjudicative system based on prior outputs, suspected bias, unstable reasoning, or self-reinforcing memory. Use when asked whether an AI should be recused, disqualified, replaced, audited, or escalated. Does not decide real cases or claim that human judicial-recusal doctrine automatically applies.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8942026년 10월 20일 업데이트

Creates an Agent Authority Charter for enterprise or regulated AI agents before deployment. Use this Skill when a user needs to define what an AI agent is allowed to do, who delegated authority to it, what actions are permitted or prohibited, when human approval is required, what evidence must be preserved, and how the agent can be suspended, revoked, or escalated.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8942026년 10월 20일 업데이트

EU AI Act Knowledge Engine — authoritative regulatory Q&A grounded in 70 official EU source documents (including the 2026 Commission draft guidelines on Art. 6 high-risk classification — general principles, Annex I, Annex III). Answers any question about the AI Act with article-level citations from the full regulation text, Commission guidelines, EDPB/EDPS opinions, codes of practice, harmonised standards, FRIA guides, incident templates, and sector-specific guidance. This skill should be used when the user asks about the "EU AI Act", "AI Act regulation", "Regulation 2024/1689", "KI-Verordnung", asks to "explain an AI Act article", "what does Article X say", "AI Act requirements", "AI Act penalties", "AI Act timeline", "GPAI obligations", "high-risk AI", "prohibited AI practices", "AI Act and GDPR", "fundamental rights impact assessment", "AI Act standards", "AI Act national implementation", "AI literacy", "serious incident reporting", "Digital Omnibus", "AI regulatory sandbox", or any question about EU artificial intelligence regulation. Also triggers on German terms: "KI-Gesetz", "KI-Verordnung", "Hochrisiko-KI", "KI-Kompetenz", "Grundrechte-Folgenabschaetzung", "GPAI-Verhaltenskodex". For assessment workflows that produce a classification decision rather than a knowledge answer, offer to run a structured risk-tier classification in-session.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8942026년 10월 20일 업데이트

This skill builds a structured audit trail of an AI-assisted task: what the tool was asked to do, what materials it was given, what it produced, how the output was verified, and what was ultimately relied upon. It documents the workflow for supervision and later review without ruling on privilege or disclosure, so the record stays accurate rather than self-serving.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8942026년 10월 20일 업데이트

Use this skill when the user wants an AI governance, legal-risk, privacy, compliance, procurement, or vendor-risk review of an internal AI use case, an AI product feature, an LLM workflow, or a third-party AI vendor. The skill asks intake and clarifying questions first when facts or evidence are missing, identifies required documentation and missing evidence, maps the use case to AI governance frameworks and applicable legal domains, and produces a preliminary or final governance review with scorecards, findings, owners, remediation actions, and follow-up questions.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8942026년 10월 20일 업데이트

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 interactive site, a Microsoft Word document, a PowerPoint deck, or a LaTeX/PDF. 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. Visual design is opinionated but the user can override colors, fonts, and brand label. Most formats need Python and a writable filesystem; single-file HTML works where the host has neither.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8942026년 10월 20일 업데이트

lawve-ai의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고