SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AB eu-ai-act-readiness

Build a preliminary, evidence-based EU AI Act readiness assessment across AI-system inventory, territorial scope, operator roles, prohibited-practice screening, risk classification, transparency, high-risk controls, general-purpose AI obligations, governance, and implementation milestones. Use when an organization needs to triage an AI use case, vendor, model, product, or portfolio for Regulation (EU) 2024/1689; prepare an AI inventory, gap register, implementation roadmap, or counsel briefing; assess provider, deployer, importer, distributor, product-manufacturer, authorised-representative, or GPAI-provider responsibilities; or re-check readiness after regulatory or product changes.

seb1n/awesome-ai-agent-skills Agent Skills author: seb1n MIT 6 files body ≈ 3 127 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 2 d ago

Build a preliminary, evidence-based EU AI Act readiness assessment across AI-system inventory, territorial scope, operator roles, prohibited-practice…

As a process B 78/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: failures and branches, running it twice

AnalyzerInfrastructureCustomer supportPeople and hiringtype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
A
98/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
94
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
78/100
Nearly there
Failures and branches w 10
0
Running it twice w 4
30
When it triggers w 12
50
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • 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 · 0

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Files scanned: 6. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    • note edit-residue the text marks something as outdated (lines 51): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions

    Process rating: all ten parameters 78/100

    • 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
    • 30Running it twice. 13 mutating operations with no state check
    • 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Steps. 35 steps
    • 100Result and completion. Output format and completion criterion are stated
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3127 tokens
    • 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
    • medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing

    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)
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 692: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 18 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 35 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 2)
    • +3All 1 scripts are documented

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 94.