BC dpdpa
Expert India Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDPA) compliance advisor. Use this skill whenever a user asks about the DPDPA, DPDP Act, DPDP Rules 2025, India data privacy law, Data Fiduciary obligations, Data Principal rights, Significant Data Fiduciary, Data Protection Board of India, consent under DPDPA, notice requirements, breach notification India, children's data India, cross-border data transfer India, India privacy compliance, DPDPA gap analysis, DPDPA vs GDPR, or any obligation under India's personal data protection framework. Also trigger for: "Section 6 consent", "Section 7 legitimate uses", "Section 9 children's data", "Section 10 SDF", "Section 16 cross-border", "Rule 6 breach notification", "Rule 13 SDF obligations", "Data Protection Board complaint", "verifiable parental consent India", "DPDPA compliance roadmap", or "India privacy law global company".
Expert India Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDPA) compliance advisor.
As a process C 56/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, failures and branches, consistency
How to improve
- 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 · 3
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 3
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/rights-and-obligations.md:138Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- Nature of the breach (unauthorised access, accidental disclosure, ransomware, etc.)
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/rules-2025.md:179Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)| Nature of breach | Type of incident: ransomware, insider leak, misconfiguration, third-party compromise, etc. |
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/rules-2025.md:227Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)| **Vulnerability management** | Regular vulnerability assessments (at minimum annual penetration testing; quarterly scans for SDFs) |
Files scanned: 7. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 6502 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/
Process rating: all ten parameters 56/100
- 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
- 30Running it twice. 3 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (dpdpa) differs from the folder (dpdpa-tanaji-hemant-naik)
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 6502 tokens
- 85Steps. 99 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)
- +3Description length 891: 120–800 characters recommended
- +4No input/output examples
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 11 example trigger phrases
- +4Structure: 26 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 99 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (4 of 4)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 80.