AB cross-regulatory-impact-analyzer-patrick-munro
Analyzes how multiple regulations interact for a specific product, service, or business model. Identifies where obligations overlap, reinforce, complement, duplicate, or conflict; builds a priority matrix; produces an integrated compliance timeline; and estimates the total compliance burden. Use when (1) scoping a new product or service against the full regulatory landscape before launch, (2) conducting M&A due diligence on a target's multi-regulation exposure, (3) building a strategic compliance roadmap where single-regulation analyses miss the interactions, (4) advising on complex situations where regulations touch the same conduct from different angles, or (5) estimating budget and resourcing for multi-regulation compliance. Primary coverage of EU digital regulation (GDPR, Data Act, AI Act, CRA, NIS2, DORA, DMA, DSA, ePrivacy) and national implementations; the framework extends to any jurisdiction where overlapping regulatory regimes apply to the same activity.
Analyzes how multiple regulations interact for a specific product, service, or business model.
As a process B 67/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: when it triggers, failures and branches, progress reporting
How to improve
- 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-securityreferences/regulation-profiles.md:238Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- Digital operational resilience testing (Art. 24-27) including threat-led penetration testing (TLPT) for significant entities
Files scanned: 5. 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 67/100
- 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
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 85Steps. 101 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2851 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low 13 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
- +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 978: 120–800 characters recommended
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Structure: 24 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 101 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 2)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 89.