compliance-os/skills/gdpr-audit-prep/SKILL.md
/cs: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.
npx skillsauth add alirezarezvani/claude-skills gdpr-audit-prepInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Command: /cs:gdpr-audit-prep <scope>
The GDPR DPO auditor pressure-tests any privacy compliance work. Six Article-cited questions before any internal audit, breach response, DPA investigation, or acquisition due diligence.
Most-cited finding area.
Article 6 is exclusive — pick ONE basis per purpose.
Required for high-risk; sample 3-5 activities.
Articles 15-22 operational workflow.
Schrems II discipline.
Article 33(5) requires logging ALL breaches.
# 1. Compliance posture
python ../../ra-qm-team/skills/gdpr-dsgvo-expert/scripts/gdpr_compliance_checker.py compliance_state.json
# 2. DPIA for high-risk activities
python ../../ra-qm-team/skills/gdpr-dsgvo-expert/scripts/dpia_generator.py processing_activity.json
# 3. DSAR workflow validation
python ../../ra-qm-team/skills/gdpr-dsgvo-expert/scripts/data_subject_rights_tracker.py dsar_log.json
# 4. Cross-framework reuse with ISO 27001 + SOC 2 + ISO 42001
python ../../skills/compliance-os/scripts/cross_framework_mapper.py program.json
# GDPR Audit Prep: <scope>
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Article Citations:** Every finding cites Article + paragraph; no paraphrase.
## The Decision Being Made
[RoPA-refresh | DPIA-required | DSAR-workflow | transfer-risk | breach-followup | DPA-readiness]
## Article 30 RoPA Status
- Last refresh: YYYY-MM-DD
- Required elements present: yes/no per processing activity
- Joint controller arrangements: documented/missing
## Article 6 Lawful Basis Discipline
- Activities reviewed: N
- Legitimate-interests claims without LIA: <list>
- Article 9 special categories with documented exception: yes/no
## Article 35 DPIA Quality
- High-risk activities requiring DPIA: <list>
- DPIAs complete per Article 35(7): pass/fail per activity
- Article 36 prior consultation triggered: <list>
## Data Subject Rights (Articles 12-22)
- DSARs in last 90 days: N
- Average response time: X days (target: ≤ 30)
- Right to erasure backup-processor flow: complete/incomplete
## Article 28 Processor Management
- Processors reviewed: N
- Contracts with all Article 28(3)(a)-(j) clauses: % complete
- Sub-processor flow-down notification mechanism: yes/no
## Schrems II Transfer Status
- Non-EU transfers: <list>
- Mechanism per transfer: adequacy / SCCs / derogation
- TIA on file: yes/no per transfer
- Supplementary measures where needed: <list>
## Article 33-34 Breach Discipline
- Breach log last 12 months: N
- Article 33 notification timing: ≤ 72h ratio
- Article 34 data subject notification (where high risk): on-time ratio
## Cross-Framework Impact
- ISO 27001 Article 32 alignment: clean / gaps
- EU AI Act Article 27 FRIA integration: applicable / not
- SOC 2 Privacy TSC alignment (if scope): clean / gaps
## Verdict
🟢 DPA-READY | 🟡 GAPS-IDENTIFIED | 🔴 NOT-READY
## Top 3 Actions
[3 concrete next steps with owner + Article-cited timeline]
## Outside Counsel Required
[Article-level ambiguities flagged: Schrems II supplementary measure adequacy, EU AI Act ↔ GDPR interaction, sectoral derogation interpretation, novel DPA enforcement]
/cs:compliance-readiness — for multi-framework view/cs:iso27001-audit-prep — for Article 32 organizational measures/cs:ai-act-readiness — for EU AI Act Article 27 FRIA integration/cs:soc2-audit-prep — for SOC 2 Privacy TSC overlap/cs:gc-review — for novel-case legal reviewcs-dpo-gdprgdpr-dsgvo-expert../iso27001-audit-prep/, ../ai-act-readiness/, ../soc2-audit-prep/, ../compliance-readiness/Version: 1.0.0
tools
Code review automation for TypeScript, JavaScript, Python, Go, Swift, Kotlin, C#, .NET, Java, C, C++, Rust, Ruby, PHP, and Dart/Flutter. Analyzes PRs for complexity and risk, checks code quality for SOLID violations and code smells, generates review reports. Use when reviewing pull requests, analyzing code quality, identifying issues, generating review checklists.
tools
Use when planning, funding, scoping, or synthesizing enterprise research across workstreams — clinical study design, R&D program finance, market sizing/surveys, or product/user research. Triggers on "design this clinical study", "what sample size", "R&D budget", "burn rate", "capitalize or expense", "TAM SAM SOM", "market sizing", "survey design", "segment the market", "plan user interviews", "usability test", "synthesize research insights". Forks context to route to one of four Research-Operations sub-skills (clinical-research, research-finance, market-research, product-research) and returns a digest. Distinct from ra-qm-team (regulatory submission), finance (corporate close/valuation), research/grants (funding discovery), product-team (persona/journey/live experiments), and marketing-skill (campaign analytics).
development
Use when managing the money for an internal R&D program or portfolio — building a multi-period program budget with the F&A (indirect) split, tracking burn rate and runway against value-inflection milestones, or routing R&D cost items to a capitalize-vs-expense determination. Every budget output surfaces its assumptions block; capitalize-vs-expense is decision-support only and routes to a named finance owner — it never books an entry or decides accounting treatment. Distinct from finance/financial-analysis (corporate DCF, close, valuation) and research/grants (funding discovery — this manages money already won).
development
Use when planning and synthesizing product/user research as a method-and-repository discipline — selecting the right method for the goal (generative interviews vs usability test vs concept test vs validation), computing method-based saturation/sample size with an explicit confidence level, or synthesizing coded observations into insights while flagging single-source anecdotes. Never fabricates user insight; an insight requires recurrence across independent participants. Distinct from product-team/ux-researcher-designer (persona/journey artifacts), product-discovery (discovery-sprint planning), and experiment-designer (live A/B) — this is the research-ops method + insight-repository layer.