CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

gdpr-audit-prep

/compliance-os:gdpr-audit-prep [scope] — GDPR audit 6-question Article-cited forcing interrogation. Use before annual internal GDPR review, post-breach internal audit, DPA investigation readiness, or acquisition due diligence.

56

Quality

71%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.gemini/skills/gdpr-audit-prep/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is gdpr-audit-prep in alirezarezvani/claude-skills

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

61%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A dense, well-structured audit command with runnable script commands and a thorough output template. Main weaknesses are legal restatement of GDPR knowledge Claude already has, a workflow lacking validation/decision checkpoints, and external file references that cannot be verified within the bundle.

Suggestions

Trim the restatements of well-known GDPR law (Article 6 basis list, Article 35(7) elements, Article 12(3) timing) down to the audit-specific expectations Claude would not know (e.g., the 90-day RoPA refresh expectation, EDPB Recommendations 01/2020)

Add validation checkpoints to the Workflow section: what a failed compliance_checker output means, when DPIA generation is required vs. skipped, and a fix-and-rerun loop before producing the verdict

Explain or show the expected schema of the workflow input files (compliance_state.json, processing_activity.json, dsar_log.json, program.json), or point to where they are generated

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Checklist-style with no fluff prose, but substantial portions restate GDPR law Claude already knows (the six Article 6 bases, Article 35(7) elements, Article 12(3) one-month deadline, Schrems II mechanisms), and the time-sensitive "EU-US Data Privacy Framework adequacy (Jul 2023)" date is not isolated in a deprecated/old-patterns section. Not score 4 because the legal restatement and the ~55-line inline output template could be meaningfully tightened or moved out.

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete copy-paste commands (four python script invocations with argument files) and a complete output-format template with per-section pass/fail fields. Not score 5 because the workflow's input files (compliance_state.json, processing_activity.json, dsar_log.json, program.json) are never explained and the scripts live in another skill's directory, leaving minor execution gaps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The Workflow section is a bare four-command list with comments — a sequence exists but with no validation checkpoints or error-recovery guidance (what to do when the compliance checker flags gaps, or how the six questions gate progression). Not score 4 because checkpoints and decision logic are absent, not score 2 because the sequence is coherent and each step is runnable.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized sections (When to Run, Six DPO Questions, Workflow, Output Format, Routing, Related) with clearly signaled one-level references (playbook, agent, adjacent skills). Not score 5 because the referenced playbook and agent files live outside this bundle via ../../ paths that are not verifiable, and the long output template is fully inline; not score 3 because navigation is clear and references are well signaled.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

70%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A solid description with explicit what-and-when structure and natural trigger scenarios, held back by a terse, jargon-flavored capability statement and incomplete synonym coverage (no DSAR/RoPA/privacy keywords). Distinctiveness within the compliance-skill family is good but not airtight.

Suggestions

State the capability in plain third-person language listing the concrete deliverables (e.g., "Runs a six-question GDPR audit interrogation covering RoPA, lawful basis, DPIAs, DSARs, transfer impact assessments, and breach logs")

Add common natural trigger terms such as "DSAR", "RoPA", "privacy compliance", "breach response", and "GDPR review" to broaden keyword coverage

Clarify the niche boundary versus general GDPR-compliance skills by naming what this skill does NOT cover (e.g., day-to-day privacy counseling)

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ("GDPR audit") and one concrete action mechanism ("6-question Article-cited forcing interrogation") but does not list several distinct capabilities. Not score 4 because only a single action is described; not score 2 because the action is concrete rather than generic.

3 / 5

Completeness

Both "what" (six-question Article-cited interrogation) and "when" (four explicit pre-use scenarios) are present. Not score 5 because the "what" is compressed into a command-invocation phrase ("forcing interrogation") rather than a clearly stated capability list; not score 3 because the "when" is explicit and specific, not merely implied.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases users would say are present ("GDPR", "audit", "post-breach", "DPA investigation", "acquisition due diligence"), but common variations like "DSAR", "RoPA", "privacy compliance", or "breach response" are missing. Not score 5 because synonym coverage is incomplete; not score 3 because the included terms are natural, not jargon-only.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (GDPR audit preparation) with distinct triggers (DPA investigation readiness, acquisition due diligence, post-breach internal audit). Not score 5 because it could overlap with a broader GDPR-compliance or general audit-prep skill; not score 3 because the triggers are far more specific than a generic domain claim.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

relative_links

Relative link issues: 3 suspicious

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

alirezarezvani/claude-skills

Path

.gemini/skills/gdpr-audit-prep/SKILL.md

Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.