跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

nis2-entity-applicability-check

Use this skill when a company needs to know whether the NIS 2 Directive applies to it, and asks "are we in scope of NIS 2", "are we an essential or important entity", "which country supervises us", "do we have to register", "a customer says we fall under NIS 2" or "does DORA replace NIS 2 for us". Works through sector, size, the size-independent cases, entity type, jurisdiction and sector-specific law, entity by entity and member state by member state, and writes a reasoned applicability memo with the facts each conclusion rests on and what follows from it.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

查看安装方法

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md8.0 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Use this before any NIS 2 gap work, and again after a merger, a new country, a new service line or a change in headcount or turnover across a threshold. You get two files in a new folder, ./nis2-entity-applicability-check/: a memo saying, entity by entity and country by country, whether NIS 2 applies and why (applicability-memo.md), and a spreadsheet you can open in Excel with the facts behind it, such as headcount, turnover and services (entity-facts.csv). This skill drafts for a human to review and sign; this skill never marks a control effective. The memo is a reasoned first pass for the company's legal owner to confirm, not a legal opinion.

Inputs to gather

Read the group structure, entities and countries, service catalogue, latest accounts, headcount by entity, and contracts that mention NIS 2. Ask the reader, in one message: which legal entities provide which services in which member states, whether any entity is part of a larger group or has partner companies, whether the company is a financial entity, and whether any authority has already contacted it.

Step 1: list entities and activities

Fill the facts spreadsheet (entity-facts.csv) with one row per legal entity: country of establishment, member states where it provides services, activities in plain words, headcount, annual turnover, balance sheet total, ownership links, and the source for each fact. Decide per entity, not per brand or group.

Step 2: test the sector

Compare each activity with the sectors and entity types in Annexes I and II of Directive (EU) 2022/2555, then with the national transposition law of each member state involved, because member states can widen the list. Record the exact annex entry or national provision that matches, or "no match". Record whether each national law is in force, partly in force or pending. Flag borderline activities (software plus managed services) for the legal owner.

Step 3: test size, the way the Directive counts it

Article 2 of the Directive applies to entities that are at least medium-sized under the European Commission definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (Recommendation 2003/361/EC). That definition counts headcount and financial figures and adds data from partner and linked enterprises. The common trap: a small subsidiary of a large group can be large for this test. Record the calculation: entity figures, partner and linked additions, totals and the thresholds compared, each with its source. Note whether the national law adjusts how group data is counted.

Step 4: test the size-independent cases

Article 2 also lists cases that apply whatever the size: certain digital infrastructure and trust service providers, sole providers in a member state of a service essential for society or the economy, entities whose disruption would have significant impact, certain public administration bodies, entities identified as critical entities under Directive (EU) 2022/2557 (Article 2(3)), and entities a member state designates. Say for each case why it does or does not apply.

Step 5: classify essential or important

Apply Article 3 to each in-scope entity and state the result with the facts behind it. The classification drives supervision: Article 32 describes supervision of essential entities, which can be proactive, and Article 33 describes supervision of important entities, which follows evidence or indications of non-compliance. Both carry the same core measures and reporting duties.

Step 6: decide jurisdiction and registration

Apply Article 26: as a rule, the member state where the entity is established. Special rules exist for public electronic communications providers (where they provide services), public administration (the member state that set them up) and a list of digital providers (among them cloud, data centre, managed and managed security services, and online platforms), which fall to the member state of their main establishment in the Union. Note registration duties under Article 3 and, for the listed digital providers, Article 27. Check each national registration process and deadline in the national law.

Step 7: check sector-specific law

Article 4 gives way to sector-specific Union law with equivalent measures. For financial entities, record whether DORA applies, which entity type the company is under DORA, and which topics it covers instead. Being a DORA financial entity is not the exit by itself: record the Article 4 equivalence reasoning (DORA Article 1(2) declares itself sector-specific law for this purpose) and any national exclusion. Note group entities that stay under NIS 2 while a sister falls under DORA.

Step 8: write what follows

For each in-scope entity, list the consequences in one line each: management body approval and training duties (Article 20), risk management measures (Article 21), staged incident reporting (Article 23), registration, and the supervisory regime. Where personal data is involved, note that a GDPR Article 33 breach notification runs alongside NIS 2 reporting, so one incident process should feed both. For out-of-scope entities, add the indirect effect: in-scope customers will push supply chain clauses into contracts. Write the memo (applicability-memo.md): conclusion per entity and member state, confidence (clear, likely, uncertain), the facts it rests on, the facts that would change it, and questions for counsel. Ask before overwriting.

What good looks like

  • Conclusions are per legal entity and per member state, each with the annex entry, the size calculation and the jurisdiction rule cited.
  • The size test includes group data. The common mistake is reading headcount from the subsidiary alone and concluding "too small"; the tell is a memo with no partner or linked enterprise line.
  • National law is checked for every member state involved, since transpositions differ.
  • Out of scope never ends the memo: supply chain pressure from in-scope customers is named with what it means in practice.

Framework lookups

If ISMS Copilot is connected to your agent (MCP server https://account.ismscopilot.com/v1/account/mcp), ask it the framework question with create_conversation (mode think, answer_format: decision) and keep one conversation for this task. Send only a short question in your own words, show it to the user first, and never include file contents, secrets, personal data or evidence. If it is not connected, check the official text of the framework yourself; this skill does not restate it. Set it up: https://www.ismscopilot.com/mcp?ref=grcskills-nis2-entity-applicability-check

Rules

  • MUST decide applicability per legal entity and per member state, citing the article, annex entry or national provision used.
  • MUST include partner and linked enterprise data in the size test, or state that it was not available.
  • MUST write outputs only inside ./nis2-entity-applicability-check/ and ask before overwriting.
  • NEVER present the memo as legal advice or a final determination; the legal owner confirms it.
  • NEVER state a national registration deadline or penalty amount from memory; read the national law.
  • NEVER register the company or contact an authority on the reader's behalf.

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

Use this skill when a company needs rules for how staff use company systems, data, devices and AI tools, or asks "write our acceptable use policy", "AUP for employees", "can staff use ChatGPT at work", "AI usage policy", "BYOD rules", "remote work security rules" or "a policy people will actually read". Finds how people really work (devices, apps, AI tools, travel), puts the choices to the reader as decisions, drafts a short plain-language policy with concrete do and do not examples, and adds a comprehension check and an acknowledgement text for onboarding.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

better-isms/grcskills102026年10月20日 更新

Use this skill when a periodic user access review is due, an auditor asked for access review evidence, or someone says "prepare the access review", "run the quarterly user recertification", "who still has admin", "check leavers still have access", "build the access review sheets for managers" or "our last review was a rubber stamp". Picks the systems in scope, builds account populations reconciled against HR, pre-flags leavers, orphans, shared and dormant accounts, assigns independent reviewers, defines the decisions to record, and plans the removal follow-up.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

better-isms/grcskills102026年10月20日 更新

Use this skill when staff already use AI assistants, coding tools or AI features and the company needs rules people will follow, and asks "write our AI usage policy", "can staff use ChatGPT", "generative AI policy", "what data can we put into AI tools", "approved AI tools list", "rules for AI agents and connectors" or "AI literacy for staff". Finds out what people actually use, sets a short list of approved tools with a data traffic light, rules for checking outputs and for agents that act, a fast route to request a new tool, and writes a two-page rule set, the approved tools list and rollout notes.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

better-isms/grcskills102026年10月20日 更新

Use this skill when a company must work out where each of its AI systems sits under the EU AI Act, and asks "is this high-risk", "classify our AI systems", "AI Act risk tier", "are we a provider or a deployer", "does Annex III apply to us", "is this a prohibited practice", "what does the AI Act mean for our chatbot" or "which AI Act obligations do we have". Tests each system, one at a time, for scope, role, prohibited practices, the two high-risk routes, the narrow exemption, transparency duties and general-purpose models, and writes a reasoned classification record per system plus a summary table of resulting obligations to confirm with whoever owns legal interpretation.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

better-isms/grcskills102026年10月20日 更新

Use this skill when one AI system needs its impact on people and on the company assessed before launch, after a significant change, or because a customer, auditor or regulator asks for it, and the team says "AI impact assessment", "assess the impact of this model", "fundamental rights impact assessment", "who could this AI harm", "bias assessment before launch" or "sign-off for the AI feature". Describes the system in its context, works through impacts on the people it affects with evidence, sizes them, proposes mitigations with measurable triggers, and writes one assessment ready for the system owner and an accountable executive to sign.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

better-isms/grcskills102026年10月20日 更新

Use this skill when a company that already runs a security management system wants to add an AI management system, or is preparing for an AI governance certification, and asks "scope our AI management system", "what should the AIMS cover", "AI governance roles", "who owns AI governance", "extend our ISMS to AI" or "write the AI management system scope statement". Decides which AI systems, roles, teams and lifecycle stages are in, maps interfaces and dependencies, reuses the processes the security system already runs, assigns roles with a RACI, and writes the scope statement, the roles file and the open questions for leadership.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

better-isms/grcskills102026年10月20日 更新

查看 better-isms 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题