SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AC eu-ai-act-specialist

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.

alirezarezvani/claude-skills Agent Skills author: alirezarezvani MIT 8 files body ≈ 3 429 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 2 d ago

EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) operational compliance for compliance teams.

As a process C 59/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: when it triggers, inputs and preconditions, failures and branches

ProcedureWriting and documentsInfrastructuretype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
A
97/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
92
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
59/100
Has gaps
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Failures and branches w 10
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

The same skill appears in 1 more place: claude-skills

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
    • A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.

    Guard findings · 0

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Files scanned: 8. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    ✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec

    Process rating: all ten parameters 59/100

    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 30Running it twice. 12 mutating operations with no state check
    • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Steps. 36 steps
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3429 tokens

    Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.

    Quality signals

    • +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +3Description length 836: 120–800 characters recommended
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +4Structure: 16 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 36 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Has examples (5 code blocks)
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (4 of 4)
    • +3All 3 scripts are documented
    • +1License stated

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 92.