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.
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
Performs structured compliance review, redlining, and drafting suggestions on legal documents against DPDPA 2023 (India) and GDPR (EU/EEA). Produces annotated output with:
On receiving a document, determine:
If jurisdiction or parties are ambiguous, state your assumption clearly before proceeding.
Parse the document into logical clause groups. Map each to the relevant legal obligation:
| Clause Group | DPDPA Reference | GDPR Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose of processing | §6 – Notice | Art. 13/14 – Transparency |
| Lawful basis / consent | §6–§9 | Art. 6 / Art. 7 |
| Data fiduciary / controller identity | §8 | Art. 13(1)(a) |
| Data principal / subject rights | §11–§14 | Art. 15–22 |
| Data retention / erasure | §8(7), §13 | Art. 5(1)(e), Art. 17 |
| Cross-border transfer | §16 | Art. 44–49 |
| Children's data / parental consent | §9 | Art. 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) |
For each clause group, apply checks from references/dpdpa-checklist.md and references/gdpr-checklist.md.
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
──────────────────────────────────────────
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]
For every 🔴 NON-COMPLIANT or ⚠️ SUSPECT finding, provide:
Reference references/model-clauses.md for standard clause templates.
| File | When to Read |
|---|---|
references/dpdpa-checklist.md | DPDPA-specific clause checks |
references/gdpr-checklist.md | GDPR-specific clause checks |
references/model-clauses.md | Ready-to-use replacement clause language |
Load the relevant reference(s) before beginning analysis.
まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
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.
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。
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.
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 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.
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。
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.
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。
Adversarially stress-tests a legal text — a contract, statute, regulation, or judicial opinion — for interpretive ambiguity: it finds the seams where the people governed by it will later disagree about what it means and turns each into a concrete dispute scenario with both sides' arguments, the likely outcome, and a fix. Use it whenever someone wants to pressure-test, red-team, audit, or find weak spots, loopholes, gaps, ambiguities, or drafting problems in a legal document; whenever a drafter wants to tighten a contract, statute, regulation, or opinion before it issues; whenever a litigator wants to mine an opinion or contract for arguments; or whenever someone hands over a legal text and asks where it will be fought over or for issue-spotting. Trigger it for contract review, statutory-ambiguity analysis, judicial-opinion scope analysis, and drafting QA — even if the user never says "stress-test" or "ambiguity."
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。