privacy-notice-review

name	privacy-notice-review
description	Reviews a published privacy notice against a seven-point disclosure checklist and the US state privacy statutes, and returns a redline with a per-item verdict. Use when a user asks to review, redline, or gap-check a privacy notice or privacy policy before publishing it.
metadata	{"version":"0.4.0"}

privacy-notice-review

Read a published privacy notice and say, item by item, whether it discloses what the US state privacy statutes require. The output is a redline for a human reviewer, not a filing.

The seven-point checklist

This is the canonical list. Every review reports a verdict for each of the seven items, in this order, and never renumbers them.

1. Categories of personal data collected, stated by category rather than by field name.
2. Purposes of processing, stated per category, not as one paragraph covering everything.
3. Third parties and categories of recipients, including processors and advertising partners.
4. Retention, either a period per category or the criteria used to set one.
5. Consumer rights and how to exercise them, with a working request route.
6. The appeal path for a request the controller denies, with the deadline for the appeal.
7. Contact details and the effective date, including the date of the last substantive change.

Procedure

1. Read the notice end to end before judging any item. A disclosure often lands in a section its heading does not advertise.
2. For each checklist item, quote the sentence in the notice that satisfies it, or record the item as missing. A paraphrase is not evidence.
3. Check the state-specific requirements in the state law reference for every state the notice names, plus every state the product actually sells into.
4. Return the redline in the shape described in the output contract: the per-item verdict table first, then the quoted evidence, then the recommended wording for each gap.

What this skill does not do

It does not read the product's data flows, so a disclosure that is present but untrue reads as satisfied here. Say so in the redline when the claim is one the notice cannot support on its face.

Changelog

• 0.4.0 - added the appeal path as checklist item 6 and renumbered contact details to item 7.
• 0.3.0 - removed the in-place write. The review now returns a report and never edits the source notice.
• 0.2.0 - added the state law reference.