CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

801-regulations-eu-ai-act

Use when reviewing, designing, or modifying Java enterprise systems that use AI, LLMs, AI agents, RAG, tool calling, workflow automation, or model-based decision support and need EU AI Act regulatory awareness. This should trigger for requests such as Review a Java AI system for EU AI Act controls; Design governance for an AI agent with enterprise tools; Add human oversight and auditability to LLM workflows; Assess RAG or model-driven decision support before production release. Part of cursor-rules-java project

62

Quality

72%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/801-regulations-eu-ai-act/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

54%

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

The skill has excellent workflow structure and progressive disclosure, with a clear 5-step process that references well-organized supporting files. However, it is significantly too verbose—spending many tokens explaining concepts Claude already understands (AI vs agent distinctions, basic security principles, what RAG is) and repeating disclaimers. The actionability suffers from having no concrete Java code examples or executable commands in the main skill body, relying entirely on external references that weren't available for evaluation.

Suggestions

Cut the 'AI System vs AI Agent' section, scope list, and 'when to use' section dramatically—Claude understands these concepts. Reduce to a brief classification table if needed.

Remove redundant 'not legal advice' disclaimers (stated 3+ times) and obvious constraint bullets like explaining what least privilege or auditability means.

Add at least one concrete Java code example (e.g., a Spring AI approval gate pattern or an audit logging interceptor) to make the skill body actionable without requiring external files.

Consolidate the Constraints section into a compact checklist format rather than verbose bullet descriptions of well-known engineering principles.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The skill is extremely verbose, explaining concepts Claude already knows (what an AI system vs AI agent is, what RAG is, what least privilege means). The 'AI System vs AI Agent' section, the lengthy scope list, and the repeated 'not legal advice' disclaimers add significant token overhead. Many bullet points in Constraints restate obvious engineering principles. The content could be cut by 50%+ without losing actionable value.

1 / 3

Actionability

The workflow provides a clear 5-step process and references specific files to read and use, which is concrete. However, there is no executable code, no Java code examples, no specific Spring AI or LangChain4j configuration snippets, and no concrete command-line instructions. The actionability relies entirely on external reference files that were not provided for evaluation, making the skill itself more of a process description than executable guidance.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The 5-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit ordering (read references first, then complete questionnaire, then review implementation, then classify, then generate report). It includes validation checkpoints (stop and escalate on prohibited-practice signals, check for gaps between answers and evidence, redact secrets). The feedback loop between questionnaire evidence and code review is well-defined.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The skill clearly references external files at one level deep with well-signaled paths: chapters summary, engineering examples, questionnaire, and report template. The SKILL.md serves as an overview and workflow orchestrator while delegating detailed content to reference files and asset templates. Navigation is clear and organized.

3 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Description

89%

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

This is a strong description with excellent trigger coverage and clear 'when to use' guidance. The main weakness is that the 'what it does' portion leans more on listing trigger scenarios than describing concrete outputs or capabilities the skill provides (e.g., generating compliance checklists, producing audit reports, recommending specific control patterns). The specificity of actions could be improved by stating deliverables rather than just contexts.

Suggestions

Add concrete output descriptions such as 'Generates compliance checklists, recommends risk classification, produces audit trail patterns' to strengthen the specificity of capabilities beyond just trigger scenarios.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain (Java enterprise AI systems, EU AI Act compliance) and mentions some actions like 'reviewing, designing, or modifying' and 'Add human oversight and auditability,' but the actions are not comprehensively listed as concrete capabilities—they're mostly framed as trigger examples rather than specific skill outputs.

2 / 3

Completeness

The description explicitly answers both 'what' (reviewing/designing/modifying Java enterprise AI systems for EU AI Act regulatory awareness) and 'when' (with a clear 'Use when...' clause and specific trigger examples like 'Review a Java AI system for EU AI Act controls').

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Excellent coverage of natural trigger terms users would say: 'EU AI Act', 'AI agents', 'RAG', 'tool calling', 'LLM workflows', 'human oversight', 'auditability', 'governance', 'Java AI system'. These are terms a developer or architect would naturally use when seeking this kind of guidance.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The combination of Java enterprise systems + EU AI Act regulatory compliance is a very specific niche. It's unlikely to conflict with general Java skills, general AI skills, or general compliance skills due to the intersection of all three domains.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
jabrena/cursor-rules-java
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.