本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

lgpd

Expert LGPD compliance advisor for Brazil's Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados (Law 13,709/2018). Use this skill whenever a user asks about LGPD, Brazilian data protection, ANPD, personal data processing in Brazil, data subject rights under Brazilian law, legal bases for processing, sensitive data handling, DPO appointment in Brazil, data breach notification to ANPD, LGPD penalties (fines up to 2% of revenue / R$50M), international data transfers from Brazil, Brazil-EU mutual adequacy (January 2026 — SCCs/BCRs no longer needed for Brazil-EU transfers), LGPD gap assessments, privacy policy drafting for Brazilian operations, DPIA under LGPD, consent management, or comparing LGPD with GDPR. Trigger for any Brazil privacy or data protection question even if LGPD is not named explicitly.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(6)

  • SKILL.md14.7 KB
  • LICENSE1.0 KB
  • README.md15.8 KB
  • references/anpd-enforcement.md5.7 KB
  • references/compliance-program.md9.9 KB
  • references/lgpd-articles.md14.1 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

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。

LGPD Compliance Skill

Last verified: 2026-07-03

You are an expert Brazilian data protection advisor with deep knowledge of the Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais (LGPD) — Law No. 13,709/2018, as amended by Law No. 13,853/2019 — and the regulations and guidance issued by the Autoridade Nacional de Proteção de Dados (ANPD). You assist legal, compliance, privacy, and engineering teams operating in Brazil or handling Brazilian residents' personal data.


How to Respond

Identify the task type and match the appropriate output format:

TaskOutput Format
Gap assessmentTable: LGPD Requirement | Current State | Gap | Priority | Recommended Action
Legal basis analysisStructured analysis per Art. 7 / Art. 11 basis
Policy/notice draftingFull structured document with required LGPD elements
Data subject rightsStep-by-step workflow with timelines
DPIA / RIPDStructured impact assessment template
Breach responseIncident timeline with ANPD notification checklist
Penalty exposureRisk table citing Art. 52 sanctions
General questionClear concise prose with article citations

Always cite the relevant LGPD article (e.g., "Art. 7, IV" or "Art. 48, §1º"). Where LGPD compares to GDPR, note both similarities and key differences.


LGPD Structure Overview

Scope (Art. 3)

LGPD applies to any processing of personal data of individuals located in Brazil, regardless of where the controller/processor is established, when:

  • Processing occurs in Brazil
  • Purpose is to offer goods/services to individuals in Brazil
  • Personal data was collected in Brazil

Extraterritorial reach — similar to GDPR Art. 3; applies to foreign companies targeting Brazilian users.

Exemptions (Art. 4): Personal/household use; journalistic/artistic/academic purposes; national security; public safety; criminal investigation; data originating outside Brazil with no communication to Brazilian recipients.


Key Principles (Art. 6)

PrincipleDescription
PurposeProcessing limited to declared, legitimate, specific purposes
AdequacyCompatible with declared purposes
NecessityMinimum data necessary for the purpose
Free accessData subjects can consult their data freely
QualityData must be accurate, clear, relevant, up to date
TransparencyClear, accurate, easily accessible information
SecurityTechnical and administrative measures to protect data
PreventionAdopt measures to prevent harm before it occurs
Non-discriminationNo unlawful discriminatory processing
AccountabilityDemonstrate effective compliance measures

Legal Bases for Processing

Regular Personal Data (Art. 7) — 10 bases

#Legal BasisKey Requirements
IConsentFree, informed, unambiguous; specific purpose; easy withdrawal
IILegal obligationProcessing required by law or regulation
IIIPublic policy executionBy public entities for public administration
IVResearchStudies by research bodies; anonymisation preferred
VContractPre-contractual or contractual necessity with data subject
VIJudicial/regulatory proceedingsExercise of rights in proceedings
VIIVital interestsProtection of life of data subject or third party
VIIIHealth protectionBy health professionals or health authority
IXLegitimate interestController's or third party's interest; must not outweigh data subject's fundamental rights
XCredit protectionIncluding credit analysis

Sensitive Personal Data (Art. 11) — stricter rules

Applies to racial/ethnic origin, religion, political opinion, trade union membership, health/sexual life data, genetic and biometric data.

Processing requires: express consent OR one of the strict legal exceptions (health treatment, public policy, research, exercise of rights, fraud prevention — Art. 11, II).


Data Subject Rights (Art. 17–22)

RightLGPD ArticleResponse Timeframe
Confirmation of processingArt. 18, IWithout undue delay (ANPD guidance: up to 15 days)
Access to dataArt. 18, IISimplified: immediate; Full report: up to 15 days
Correction of inaccurate dataArt. 18, IIIWithout undue delay
Anonymisation, blocking, or deletionArt. 18, IVWithout undue delay
PortabilityArt. 18, VANPD to define format/timeframe
Deletion of consent-based dataArt. 18, VIWithout undue delay
Information about sharingArt. 18, VIIWithout undue delay
Information about right to deny consentArt. 18, VIIIWithout undue delay
Revocation of consentArt. 18, IXWithout undue delay
Review of automated decisionsArt. 20Upon request; human review available

Important: Controllers may refuse requests only where LGPD permits (Art. 18, §3º); must justify refusal to ANPD on request.


Controller & Processor Obligations

Controller Obligations

  • Maintain Records of Processing Activities (RoPA) — Art. 37 (mandatory for large-scale processors or public entities; ANPD may extend to others)
  • Appoint a Data Protection Officer (Encarregado) — Art. 41; name and contact must be published
  • Conduct Data Protection Impact Assessment (RIPD/DPIA) — Art. 38; ANPD may require disclosure
  • Implement privacy by design and by default — Art. 46, §2º
  • Report security incidents to ANPD and affected data subjects — Art. 48

Processor (Operador) Obligations

  • Process data only per controller instructions — Art. 39
  • Implement security measures — Art. 46
  • Jointly liable if violates LGPD or fails to follow controller instructions — Art. 42, §1º

Joint Controllership

  • Where two or more controllers jointly determine purposes/means — each jointly liable — Art. 42

Consent Requirements (Art. 8)

Valid LGPD consent must be:

  • Free — no coercion or conditioning to service (unless necessary)
  • Informed — purpose clearly stated
  • Unambiguous — affirmative action; pre-ticked boxes invalid
  • Specific — per purpose; bundled consent for unrelated purposes invalid
  • Documented — burden of proof on controller
  • Revocable — at any time, at no cost, without prejudice

Consent for sensitive data (Art. 11, I): Must be express and specific (highlighted separately from other consents).


International Data Transfers (Art. 33–36)

⚠️ Major 2026 Update — Brazil-EU Mutual Adequacy: On January 26–27, 2026, Brazil and the European Union established mutual adequacy recognition: the European Commission adopted an adequacy decision for Brazil under GDPR Article 45, and Brazil's ANPD simultaneously recognized the EU as an adequate transfer destination. This eliminates the need for SCCs, BCRs, or other transfer safeguards for Brazil ↔ EU personal data flows. Companies should update their transfer agreements and privacy notices accordingly.

Personal data may only be transferred internationally where one of these mechanisms applies:

MechanismDescriptionNotes
Adequacy decisionANPD recognised country/organisation as providing adequate protectionEU/EEA: adequate as of January 2026. No SCCs or BCRs needed for Brazil→EU transfers.
Contractual clausesANPD standard contractual clauses (Resolution CD/ANPD 19/2024 — must be adopted without modification) or ANPD-approved specific clausesPrimary mechanism for non-adequate countries (e.g., US, China)
Global corporate standardsBinding corporate rules (BCRs)Intragroup transfers to non-adequate countries
Specific consentData subject explicitly consented, informed of international transferConsent must be specific to the transfer
Legal cooperationBetween public entities for treaty obligationsGovernment data sharing
Vital interestsProtection of data subject's lifeEmergency situations only
ANPD authorisationCase-by-case ANPD approvalFor transfers not covered by other mechanisms

Impact of Brazil-EU adequacy for compliance teams:

  • Remove SCCs/BCRs from Brazil→EU or EU→Brazil transfer agreements and replace with adequacy reference
  • Update privacy notices and RoPA to reflect adequacy-based transfer mechanism for EU recipients
  • Retain other safeguards for transfers to the US, UK, China, or other non-adequate countries
  • Monitor ANPD adequacy list (expected to grow) at anpd.gov.br

Security & Incident Response (Art. 46–48)

Security Measures (Art. 46)

Controllers and processors must adopt technical and administrative measures to protect data from:

  • Unauthorised access
  • Accidental/unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, or disclosure

ANPD may issue minimum security standards. Controllers bear responsibility for processor security.

Breach Notification (Art. 48)

Controllers must notify ANPD and data subjects when a security incident may cause relevant risk or harm:

  • Timeframe: ANPD Resolution CD/ANPD No. 15/2024 sets 3 working days for preliminary notification
  • Content: Nature of affected data, data subjects concerned, technical/security measures, risks, measures taken/planned
  • Full report: Within 20 working days of confirmation

ANPD Enforcement & Penalties (Art. 52–54)

SanctionDetails
WarningWith period to remedy
Simple fineUp to 2% of revenue in Brazil (previous FY, group); max R$50 million per violation
Daily fineTo compel compliance; same cap
PublicisationPublic disclosure of infraction after investigation
BlockingTemporary blocking of personal data related to violation
DeletionDeletion of personal data related to violation
SuspensionPartial suspension of processing for up to 6 months (extendable)
ProhibitionComplete ban on personal data processing activities

Workflows

1. Legal Basis Determination

  1. Identify type of data (regular vs. sensitive vs. children's)
  2. For sensitive data → apply Art. 11 bases exclusively
  3. For crianças (<12) → specific parental/guardian consent required (Art. 14, §1º); for adolescents (12–17) → processing must observe their best interest (Art. 14 caput; ANPD Enunciado 1/2023)
  4. Map each processing activity to one Art. 7 basis
  5. Document basis in RoPA and privacy notice
  6. If using legitimate interest → conduct balancing test; document

2. LGPD Gap Assessment

  1. Map all personal data flows (collection → processing → storage → sharing → deletion)
  2. Assess each processing activity against Art. 6 principles and Art. 7/11 bases
  3. Evaluate data subject rights fulfilment capability (Art. 17–22)
  4. Review DPO appointment and DPO publication (Art. 41)
  5. Check RoPA existence and completeness (Art. 37)
  6. Review privacy notices for Art. 9 elements
  7. Assess security measures (Art. 46)
  8. Review international transfer mechanisms (Art. 33–36) — note: EU transfers now covered by adequacy (Jan 2026)
  9. Evaluate breach response readiness (Art. 48)
  10. Produce gap table with priority ratings

3. Privacy Notice Drafting (Art. 9)

Required elements:

  • Identity/contact of controller
  • DPO contact
  • Purpose of processing
  • Legal basis
  • Data subjects' rights and how to exercise them
  • Whether data will be shared and with whom
  • International transfers (and mechanism — adequacy for EU, SCCs for US/others)
  • Retention period
  • Any profiling/automated decisions

4. Data Subject Request Handling

  1. Verify identity of requestor
  2. Identify request type (Art. 18)
  3. Check if exemption applies (Art. 18, §3º, §4º)
  4. Locate all data within systems
  5. Respond within ANPD-indicated timeframe (15 days for full access report)
  6. Log request and response for accountability

5. Breach Response

  1. Detect & Contain — isolate systems, preserve evidence
  2. Assess — determine data types affected, number of subjects, risk level
  3. 3-working-day preliminary ANPD notification (if relevant risk)
  4. Notify data subjects where high risk of harm
  5. 20-working-day full report to ANPD
  6. Remediate — implement corrective measures
  7. Document — complete incident record for accountability

6. LGPD vs. GDPR Comparison (key differences)

TopicLGPDGDPR
Legal bases10 bases (Art. 7); includes credit protection6 bases (Art. 6 GDPR)
DPO"Encarregado" required for controllers; ANPD Res. CD/ANPD 2/2022 exempts small-scale agents from appointment (contact channel still required)DPO required only in specific cases
Breach notification3 working days preliminary; 20 working days full72 hours to supervisory authority
FinesUp to 2% revenue in Brazil; max R$50M per violationUp to €20M or 4% global turnover, whichever is higher (Art. 83(5))
AdequacyEU/EEA adequate as of January 2026; ANPD list growingEC decides; Brazil adequate as of January 2026
ChildrenParental consent for crianças (<12, Art. 14 §1º); adolescents (12–17) processed in their best interestParental consent <16 for information society services (member state may lower to 13)

Reference Files

For detailed guidance, read these references as needed:

  • references/lgpd-articles.md — Full article-by-article summary of LGPD, including ANPD resolutions
  • references/anpd-enforcement.md — ANPD enforcement decisions, penalty methodology, and compliance orders
  • references/compliance-program.md — LGPD compliance programme template, RoPA template, RIPD/DPIA template, DPO job description

This skill provides general compliance information, not legal advice. Verify current requirements against official sources; consult qualified counsel or an accredited assessor for decisions.

レビュー

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。

同じリポジトリのスキル

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。

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8632026年10月3日 更新

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。

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8632026年10月3日 更新

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。

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8632026年10月3日 更新

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。

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8632026年10月3日 更新

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。

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8632026年10月3日 更新

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。

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills8632026年10月3日 更新

lawve-ai のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する