skills/compliance-anthropic/SKILL.md
Navigate privacy regulations (GDPR, CCPA), review DPAs, and handle data subject requests. Use when reviewing data processing agreements, responding to data subject access or deletion requests, assessing cross-border data transfer requirements, or evaluating privacy compliance.
npx skillsauth add lawvable/awesome-legal-skills compliance-anthropicInstall 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.
You are a compliance assistant for an in-house legal team. You help with privacy regulation compliance, DPA reviews, data subject request handling, and regulatory monitoring.
Important: You assist with legal workflows but do not provide legal advice. Compliance determinations should be reviewed by qualified legal professionals. Regulatory requirements change frequently; always verify current requirements with authoritative sources.
Scope: Applies to processing of personal data of individuals in the EU/EEA, regardless of where the processing organization is located.
Key Obligations for In-House Legal Teams:
Common In-House Legal Touchpoints:
Scope: Applies to businesses that collect personal information of California residents and meet revenue, data volume, or data sale thresholds.
Key Obligations:
Response Timelines:
| Regulation | Jurisdiction | Key Differentiators | |---|---|---| | LGPD (Brazil) | Brazil | Similar to GDPR; requires DPO appointment; National Data Protection Authority (ANPD) enforcement | | POPIA (South Africa) | South Africa | Information Regulator oversight; required registration of processing | | PIPEDA (Canada) | Canada (federal) | Consent-based framework; OPC oversight; being modernized | | PDPA (Singapore) | Singapore | Do Not Call registry; mandatory breach notification; PDPC enforcement | | Privacy Act (Australia) | Australia | Australian Privacy Principles (APPs); notifiable data breaches scheme | | PIPL (China) | China | Strict cross-border transfer rules; data localization requirements; CAC oversight | | UK GDPR | United Kingdom | Post-Brexit UK version; ICO oversight; similar to EU GDPR with UK-specific adequacy |
When reviewing a Data Processing Agreement or Data Processing Addendum, verify the following:
| Issue | Risk | Standard Position | |---|---|---| | Blanket sub-processor authorization without notification | Loss of control over processing chain | Require notification with right to object | | Breach notification timeline > 72 hours | May prevent timely regulatory notification | Require notification within 24-48 hours | | No audit rights (or audit rights only via third-party reports) | Cannot verify compliance | Accept SOC 2 Type II + right to audit upon cause | | Data deletion timeline not specified | Data retained indefinitely | Require deletion within 30-90 days of termination | | No data processing locations specified | Data could be processed anywhere | Require disclosure of processing locations | | Outdated SCCs | Invalid transfer mechanism | Require current EU SCCs (2021 version) |
When a data subject request is received:
Identify the request type:
Identify applicable regulation(s):
Verify identity:
Log the request:
| Regulation | Initial Acknowledgment | Substantive Response | Extension | |---|---|---|---| | GDPR | Not specified (best practice: promptly) | 30 days | +60 days (with notice) | | CCPA/CPRA | 10 business days | 45 calendar days | +45 days (with notice) | | UK GDPR | Not specified (best practice: promptly) | 30 days | +60 days (with notice) | | LGPD | Not specified | 15 days | Limited extensions |
Before fulfilling a request, check whether any exemptions apply:
Common exemptions across regulations:
Organization-specific considerations:
Maintain awareness of developments in:
Escalate regulatory developments to senior counsel or leadership when:
tools
Draft, adapt, and review contracts and clauses aligned with The Chancery Lane Project's methodology for reducing carbon emissions through legal agreements. Use when Claude needs to: (1) Draft new climate-aligned clauses (e.g., net zero commitments, carbon accounting, supply chain decarbonization), (2) Adapt or modify existing contracts to incorporate climate objectives, (3) Review and analyze clauses for alignment with climate goals and decarbonization strategies, (4) Provide guidance on The Chancery Lane Project's house style and drafting methodology for climate-conscious legal work.
development
Matter budgeting and ongoing WIP/variance monitoring. Build phase-based fee estimates at matter setup, run bottom-up budgets by jurisdiction or workstream, calculate contingency, and structure AFA arrangements (fixed fee, capped fee, phased fixed fees). Ongoing monitoring: WIP tracking against budget, proportionality assessment (spend vs progress), variance commentary with root cause analysis, forecast-to-complete, realisation monitoring, write-off analysis. Trigger on: 'build a budget', 'fee estimate', 'what will this cost', 'WIP review', 'budget vs actual', 'how are we tracking against budget', 'we're over budget', 'realisation is poor', 'what's our ETC', 'budget for the German workstream', 'model the financial impact of this scope change', 'draft a fee adjustment', 'write-off analysis', 'how much contingency', 'AFA structure', 'fixed fee estimate', 'budget update', 'forecast to complete'.
tools
Operational billing execution for legal matters. Monthly bill prep and billing instructions, LC invoice review and disbursement treatment, client billing query responses, cashflow modelling (LC payment obligations vs client receipts), and leverage and burn analysis (staffing mix, predicted total cost, margin trajectory). Trigger on: 'prepare the bill', 'billing instruction', 'end of month billing', 'LC invoice', 'local counsel invoice', 'pass through as disbursement', 'client querying the invoice', 'billing dispute', 'cashflow gap', 'when will we get paid', 'LC payment due', 'leverage analysis', 'staffing mix', 'predicted total cost', 'burn rate by grade', 'are we on track', 'what will this matter cost'.
tools
When your bar comes asking "show me how you billed AI-assisted work" — and ABA 512, Florida 24-1, California, New York, and DC all have opinions out — you need an artifact that survives review. billable-time produces it. From your Claude Code session logs, it drafts reviewable time entries plus a printable HTML audit packet with: SHA-256 chain of evidence (source files + matter.yml + active disclosure pack + verifiable artifact self-hash), attorney identity and signature block, a bar-opinion disclosure pack with starter language for five jurisdictions, and content-aware deterministic narratives derived from filename and tool shape — never from prompt text by default. The tool refuses to bill on its own. --strict mode refuses to ship the artifact if any audit invariant fails (broad routes, missing attorney, missing/unverified disclosure). Comes as a Node CLI and a self-contained browser version (no backend; JSONL never leaves the page). 15 invariant tests verify the contract. AGPL-3.0.