「high-risk」の検索結果

Assess and operationalize implementation readiness for high-risk AI systems under the EU AI Act Annex III, including provider and deployer obligations, conformity assessment, post-market monitoring, and EU database registration. Use when users say things like “we classified this as high-risk, what now?”, “build an EU AI Act readiness plan”, “assess our Annex III compliance gaps”, “what do providers/deployers of high-risk AI need to implement?”, “prepare for conformity assessment”, or “create a high-risk AI implementation roadmap.”

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Preparing EU AI Act compliance documentation for high-risk AI systems. Covers Annex III classification, technical documentation under Art. 11, conformity assessment, risk management systems, and CE marking requirements. Keywords: EU AI Act, high-risk AI, Annex III, conformity assessment, CE marking.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Classify AI systems under the EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) and determine compliance obligations. Use when asked to assess AI risk level, check if an AI system is prohibited, determine high-risk status, identify GPAI model obligations, map provider/deployer responsibilities, or build an AI Act compliance roadmap. Covers the full classification decision tree (Prohibited → High-Risk → Limited → Minimal → GPAI), obligations by role (provider, deployer, importer, distributor), compliance timelines, and DACH-specific considerations (German works council, BaFin, BSI, BNetzA). Triggers on phrases like "classify this AI system", "is this high-risk under the AI Act", "AI Act risk assessment", "EU AI Act compliance", "prohibited AI practice", "GPAI obligations", "AI Act timeline".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Provides combined DPIA and AI Act conformity assessment template with integrated risk scoring matrix. Covers GDPR Art. 35 DPIA elements, AI Act high-risk system requirements, mitigation measures, and human oversight assessment. Keywords: DPIA template, conformity assessment, risk scoring, AI Act, combined assessment, high-risk AI.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) operational compliance for compliance teams. Three Article-level decisions: (1) What's the risk tier of this AI system — prohibited (Art. 5), high-risk (Art. 6 + Annex III), limited-risk (Art. 50), or minimal-risk? (2) For high-risk systems, what's the Article 43 conformity assessment route (Module A internal control vs Module H full QMS + notified body) and what goes in the Annex IV technical documentation? (3) Per organizational role (provider / deployer / importer / distributor / authorized representative), what are the active obligations and deadlines? Use during AI system intake review, when planning conformity assessment, or when scoping deployer obligations. Cites Articles + Annexes for every output. NOT executive AI strategy (see chief-ai-officer-advisor). NOT a legal substitute.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Define and generate the manual-first evidence pack for high-risk work. Covers 6 high-risk class definitions and the 5-artifact schema required before finalizing, pushing, or handing off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Depth assessment of whether an AI system is high-risk under Art. 6 of the EU AI Act, grounded in the Commission's draft Art. 6(5) classification guidelines (general principles + Annex I + Annex III). Covers the Annex I product-safety route, all eight Annex III areas with worked examples, the Art. 6(3) exception and its profiling re-exception, and the Art. 25 quasi-provider trap. Outputs a structured decision block, a practitioner memo, and a JSON interchange artefact.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Determines whether a technology qualifies as an AI system under Art. 3(1) of the EU AI Act and classifies its risk tier (prohibited, high-risk, GPAI with systemic risk, limited risk, minimal risk). This skill should be used when the user asks to "classify an AI system under the AI Act", "determine the AI Act risk tier", "check if something is an AI system", "assess prohibited practices", "check high-risk classification", "determine Art. 6 exception applicability", or mentions "KI-Verordnung", "Risikoklassifizierung", Art. 5, Annex III, or GPAI systemic risk.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Conduct Fundamental Rights Impact Assessments (FRIA) for high-risk AI systems as required by EU AI Act Article 27. Use when (1) deployers of high-risk AI systems (Annex III) need to assess fundamental rights impacts before first use, (2) public bodies or private entities providing public services are deploying AI systems, (3) credit scoring or insurance risk assessment AI systems are being deployed (Annex III 5b, 5c), (4) evaluating impact on natural persons' fundamental rights (dignity, liberty, privacy, data protection, non-discrimination, children's rights, etc.), or (5) creating EU AI Act Article 27 compliance documentation with market surveillance notification.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

This skill determines whether inpatient diabetic patients meet high-risk criteria for CGM initiation using Table 3 factors such as age ≥65 years, BMI ≤27 kg/m², type 1 diabetes, insulin regimen, and specific clinical conditions. It is triggered by clinician questions like "Should I assess this inpatient for CGM initiation based on hypoglycemia risk?" or "Is this patient a candidate for inpatient CGM?"

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Perform evidence-backed impact analysis before changing code, data, interfaces, or governance documents, then compare the planned impact with the actual diff after implementation. Covers call paths, data and schema, API contracts, tests, documentation, ADRs, deployment, migration, and rollback. Use for cross-module or high-risk changes, database migrations, authentication, public interfaces, blast-radius questions, pre-change checks, and post-implementation alignment.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Review agent-written changes before merge, after substantial edits, or when re-reviewing a repair. Use the adversarial protocol for high-risk changes or an explicitly requested deep review.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Router/index for the 15 regulatory & quality-management skills bundled in this plugin (ISO 13485 QMS, EU MDR 2017/745, FDA submissions under QMSR, ISO 14971 risk, CAPA, document control, ISO 27001/ISMS, ISO 42001 AIMS, EU AI Act, GDPR/DSGVO, SOC 2, auditing). Use when a compliance request doesn't obviously match one skill and you need to pick the right one (e.g., 'prepare us for an ISO 13485 audit', 'is my AI system high-risk under the AI Act').

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Zero-downtime migration planning, compatibility validation, and rollback strategy generation. Tools for system, database, and infrastructure migrations with minimal business impact. Use when planning a database migration, infrastructure cutover, system replacement, or any high-risk transition that needs explicit rollback paths.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Audits, configures, and hardens workload-level security controls for Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE) applications and namespaces. Covers running security audits (`audit_cluster.sh`), enforcing Network Policies (default-deny and Dataplane V2 logging), isolating high-risk pods inside GKE Sandbox (`gVisor`), enforcing Pod Security Standards (`restricted` labeling) and pod securityContext, and mounting Secret Manager secrets via CSI (`SecretProviderClass`). Use when auditing workload security posture, isolating namespaces, applying pod security standards, or configuring network policies and secret volume mounts. Don't use for Workload Identity (use gke-workload-identity), cluster-wide control plane security, RBAC hardening, Binary Authorization, Shielded Nodes, or enabling platform-level GKE add-ons (use gke-platform-security instead).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Termination review — high-risk flag detection, severance + release, and final pay timing by jurisdiction. Jurisdiction-specific rules and release consideration periods are researched per review, not stored. Use when the user says "reviewing a termination", "can we fire this person", "term review", or describes a termination scenario.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

EU AI Act per-system inventory — track each AI system's role (provider, deployer, importer, distributor, authorized representative, product manufacturer) and risk tier (prohibited, high-risk, limited, minimal, GPAI, GPAI+systemic). Role and tier are assessed per system, not per company. Use when the user says "ai inventory", "add an ai system", "what systems do we have", "classify this ai system", "eu ai act register", or "ai system registry".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Guides the contribution workflow for Apache Beam, including creating PRs, issue management, code review process, release cycles, and rigorous evaluation rules for high-risk core component changes. Use when contributing code, creating PRs, or modifying core Beam components.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Trigger: a mapping need, parallel units, context backstop, high-risk verify, fresh review, or multi-step debug. Delegate via delegate_task for a named reason.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when changing OpenRig's own source in a clone of the openrig repository: finding which package or file owns a behaviour, choosing which tests to run, testing a change without disturbing the OpenRig daemon your own session runs on, judging whether a diff touches a high-risk area, or preparing a pull request. Not for operating rigs (openrig-skills) or designing rig topologies.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Detect current high-risk Adobe integration traps before they become production incidents. Use when the task requires adobe integration pitfall review. Trigger with "Adobe pitfalls", "review Adobe integration", or "find obsolete Adobe code".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when requesting independent code review, after implementation slices, before merging high-risk work, or when verification exposes evidence, baseline, architecture, compatibility, or retirement uncertainty.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when asked for first-principles or Occam's-razor review, or when high-risk decisions involve competing constraints, fallback growth, duplicate owners, or architecture direction risk. Ordinary bug fixes stay on the fast path.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。