BB conducting-gdpr-compliance-assessment
Conduct comprehensive GDPR compliance assessments by evaluating data processing activities against EU Regulation 2016/679, including Article 30 records of processing, lawful basis validation, data subject rights implementation, Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) under Article 35, breach notification procedures, international transfer safeguards (SCCs, adequacy decisions), and technical/organizational measures under Article 32. Use when processing personal data of EU residents, preparing for supervisory authority audits, implementing privacy-by-design for new systems, scoping compliance gaps for M&A due diligence, assessing third-party processors, or responding to data subject access requests at scale. Incorporates 2026 guidance from ICO, EDPB, and post-Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 UK-GDPR considerations. Do not use for implementing specific Article 32 controls — use implementing-gdpr-data-protection-controls; or for DSAR automation — use implementing-gdpr-data-subject-access-request.
Conduct comprehensive GDPR compliance assessments by evaluating data processing activities against EU Regulation 2016/679, including Article 30 records of…
As a process B 68/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: failures and branches, running it twice, 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 · 9
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 9
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityassets/compliance-scorecard.md:176Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)| Penetration testing | ☐ Yes ☐ No | [Last conducted: date] |
-
low Exfiltration
net-credential-usereferences/api-reference.md:45Credential used in a network call (verify the destination is the intended service) (documentation of a security skill)curl -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
security skill -
low Exfiltration
net-credential-usereferences/api-reference.md:49Credential used in a network call (verify the destination is the intended service) (documentation of a security skill)curl -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
security skill -
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/detailed-workflow.md:200Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- Penetration test annually
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/detailed-workflow.md:287Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- Penetration test scheduled for 2026-09-15
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/detailed-workflow.md:375Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- Annual penetration testing
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securityreferences/detailed-workflow.md:382Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- Bug bounty program
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:163Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- **Medium risk**: AES-256 encryption, MFA, RBAC, penetration testing, SOC 2
-
low Risky intent
intent-offensive-securitySKILL.md:164Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)- **High risk**: HSMs, key rotation, SIEM, bug bounty, ISO 27001
Files scanned: 9. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "domain" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "subdomain" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "nist_csf" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "mitre_attack"
Process rating: all ten parameters 68/100
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
- 50When 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. 82 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2998 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
- +3Description length 1008: 120–800 characters recommended
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
- +4Structure: 20 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 82 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 3)
- +3All 3 scripts are documented
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 93.