CC analyse-dpa-fournisseur-hugo-salard
Analyse systématique d'un Data Processing Agreement (DPA) au regard de l'article 28 RGPD, des lignes directrices EDPB 07/2020 et 02/2024, des CCT 2021 (décision d'exécution 2021/914), des recommandations EDPB 01/2020 (mesures supplémentaires post-Schrems II), et du Règlement (UE) 2024/1689 (Règlement IA). Produit un rapport structuré clause par clause (18 clauses : 13 obligatoires + 5 complémentaires) avec diagnostic 🟢/🟡/🔴, remédiations prêtes à insérer, analyse détaillée des transferts internationaux, vérification Règlement IA, et questions à poser au fournisseur. Triggers : "analyse de DPA", "audit DPA", "vérifier un DPA", "DPA fournisseur", "data processing agreement", "art. 28 RGPD", "sous-traitant RGPD", "négociation DPA", "review DPA", "conformité contrat sous-traitance".
Analyse systématique d'un Data Processing Agreement (DPA) au regard de l'article 28 RGPD, des lignes directrices EDPB 07/2020 et 02/2024, des CCT 2021…
As a process C 50/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: when it triggers, inputs and preconditions, failures and branches
How to improve
- Say in the description WHEN to use the skill ("use when…", example requests): that is the agent's main cue.
- The SKILL.md body is over 5,000 tokens: move reference detail into references/ and load it when needed.
- 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 · 1
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 1
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityresources/clauses-remediation-types.md:54Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)> « Le Sous-traitant met en œuvre les mesures techniques et organisationnelles suivantes, conformément à l'article 32 du RGPD : [liste à adapter selon le fournisseur]. Ces mesures comprennent au minim
quoted
Files scanned: 7. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
description-no-whendescription does not say WHEN to use the skill (no "use when") - warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 7491 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/
Process rating: all ten parameters 50/100
- 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. 3 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (analyse-dpa-fournisseur-hugo-salard) differs from the folder (analyse-rgpd-de-dpa-fournisseur-hugo-salard)
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 7491 tokens
- 85Steps. 104 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- low 11 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
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
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- -246 emoji in the instructions: noise for the model
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 10 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 791: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 36 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 104 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (6 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 68.