BC gdpr-privacy-notice-eu-oliver-schmidt-prietz
Draft GDPR/DSGVO-compliant privacy notices as .docx for any EU/EEA jurisdiction and audience. Use when user asks to create a privacy policy/notice, mentions "Datenschutzerklärung", "politique de confidentialité", "privacy notice", needs Art. 13/14 disclosures, AI Act transparency, cookie policy, or notices for applicants ("Bewerber-Datenschutz"), employees ("Beschäftigten-Datenschutz"), B2B partners, or B2C customers. Covers DE (DSGVO+BDSG+TDDDG), FR (RGPD+LIL+LCEN), AT, IT, ES, NL, BE, IE, UK GDPR. Five notice types: Website/App, Applicant, Employee, Business Partner, B2C Customer.
Draft GDPR/DSGVO-compliant privacy notices as .docx for any EU/EEA jurisdiction and audience. Use when user asks to create a privacy policy/notice, mentions…
As a process C 51/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
How to improve
- The SKILL.md body is over 5,000 tokens: move reference detail into references/ and load it when needed.
- 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: 10. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 5736 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/
Process rating: all ten parameters 51/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (gdpr-privacy-notice-eu-oliver-schmidt-prietz) differs from the folder (privacy-notice-generator-oliver-schmidt-prietz)
- 60Steps. 135 steps, 5 vague phrases
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 5736 tokens
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Failures and branches. 4 branches, has a failure section
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- medium 4 test cases, all positive: not one "should refuse" or "should ask first"
- low No test case covers injection arriving through data
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)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- -5TODO / placeholder text left in the skill
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 5 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 589: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 29 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 135 items
- +4Has examples (3 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (6 of 6)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 79.