CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

reg-gap-analysis

Diff a new or changed regulation against current privacy policy and practice — outputs a gap list and a remediation plan with owners and dates. Use when a new reg drops, the user asks "does [regulation] affect us", "gap analysis for [state privacy law]", "compliance check against [reg]", or pastes regulatory text.

72

Quality

88%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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

A well-structured, highly actionable legal-compliance workflow with clear sequencing and validation/feedback loops, weakened mainly by verbosity in conceptual and rationale sections and a monolithic single-file layout that forgoes progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Move the 'Common regulation categories' taxonomy and the source-attribution-tiering detail into a separate references file (e.g. references/citation-tiering.md) and link to it one level deep, tightening the main body.

Trim the rationale blockquotes (research-connector pre-flight, no-silent-supplement, closing citation note) to the operative instruction; the repeated verification coaching can be consolidated once.

Reduce the conceptual category definitions to a brief list pointing to research, since Claude already knows what baseline, sector-specific, and AI regimes are.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense with operational specifics, but the 'Common regulation categories' section explains a conceptual taxonomy Claude largely knows, and the lengthy rationale blockquotes (fabrication-risk coaching, repeated citation-verification notes) could be tightened. Not a 1 because it avoids basic-concept padding and stays domain-specific; not a 3 due to verbatim rationale prose and taxonomy definitions that exceed what is needed.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides concrete table schemas (| # | Requirement | Citation | Category |), exact per-requirement diff templates with named fields, a copy-paste remediation-plan structure (| Gap | Fix | Owner | Due | Status |), and exact phrasings like 'Doesn't apply. Here's why: [reason]. No action needed.' — fully actionable even though it is instruction-only.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Clear 5-step sequence (Scope → Extract → Diff → Prioritize → Remediation) with explicit validation gates — an applicability early-exit, a 'Verify currency' check, and the no-silent-supplement decision loop that branches on thin research results.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Headers organize the single file well, but it is a monolithic SKILL.md with no bundle files (references/scripts/assets absent) and inline content — the source-attribution tiering and category taxonomy — that could live in one-level-deep reference files. Not a 3 because nothing is split across files; not a 1 because section structure and navigation are clear.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

100%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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

The description is concise, concrete, and follows the good-example pattern: third-person voice, explicit 'Use when' triggers with natural user phrasings, and a clear distinct niche. It answers both what and when without padding.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'Diff a new or changed regulation against current privacy policy and practice', 'outputs a gap list and a remediation plan with owners and dates' — matching the multiple-specific-actions anchor.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (diff + gap list + remediation plan with owners/dates) and when ('Use when a new reg drops, the user asks ...'), with explicit trigger guidance in third person.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural user phrasings — 'does [regulation] affect us', 'gap analysis for [state privacy law]', 'compliance check against [reg]', 'pastes regulatory text' — giving good coverage of terms a user would actually say.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear regulation-to-policy gap-analysis niche with distinct legal/compliance triggers, making it unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

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.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
anthropics/claude-for-legal
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.