dpa-art28

name	dpa-art28
description	Use this skill when the user needs to review, draft, or redline a Data Processing Agreement (DPA / Auftragsverarbeitungsvertrag / AVV) under Art. 28 GDPR, or to prepare a Joint Controller Arrangement under Art. 26 GDPR. Triggers include "DPA", "AVV", "Auftragsverarbeitung", "Auftragsverarbeitungsvertrag", "Art. 28 contract", "data processing agreement", "processor agreement", "Art. 26 arrangement", "joint controller agreement", "JCA", "review this DPA", "draft a DPA", "redline this DPA", or any request involving controller-processor / joint-controller contracting. Supports bilingual output (DE/EN), both controller- and processor-side perspectives, and both quick (Art. 28(3)(a)–(h) coverage) and negotiation-grade (clause-by-clause risk scoring) review depths.
license	Apache-2.0
lq_ai	{"title":"DPA Art. 28 GDPR — Review, Drafting & Redlining","version":"1.0.0","author":"Oliver Schmidt-Prietz","tags":["gdpr","dpa","art-28","art-26","data-processing-agreement","joint-controller","contract-review","redline","bilingual-de-en"],"jurisdiction":"eu","trigger_examples":["Review this DPA for Art. 28(3) compliance — should we sign?","Draft a processor agreement (AVV) for a German SaaS vendor.","Redline this counterparty DPA from the controller's side.","Are these parties joint controllers or controller-processor?","Prepare a Joint Controller Arrangement under Art. 26."],"inputs":{"required":["The DPA / AVV text (for review or redline), or the processing scenario (for drafting)","Roles: who is controller, who is processor (or whether joint controllers)"],"optional":["Perspective: controller-favorable / processor-favorable / balanced","Language: DE / EN / bilingual","Tier: Commercial / Strict (2021/915 unmodified) / Hybrid","International-transfer scope, sub-processor model, special-category data"]},"output_format":"report","minimum_inference_tier":2,"self_improvement":false}

DPA Art. 28 GDPR — Review, Drafting & Redlining

Purpose

This skill governs all work on controller–processor contracts (Art. 28 GDPR) and joint-controller arrangements (Art. 26 GDPR). It produces:

• Reviews of existing DPAs (quick or negotiation-grade)
• Drafts of new DPAs / AVVs from modular templates (DE / EN)
• Redlines in response to counterparty drafts
• Joint Controller Agreements (JCA / Art.-26-Vereinbarung)

Who this is for, and what kind of work this is

Operator. This skill is written for a privacy or commercial lawyer, or a trained paralegal working under attorney supervision — someone who can read a DPA clause and exercise judgement on the output, not a lay business user. It assumes legal literacy but no special AI fluency beyond describing the scenario and the side you act for in plain language.

Work shape. The work is bounded and transactional: a single contract (or counterparty draft) reviewed, drafted, or redlined against a fixed Art. 28 / Art. 26 benchmark, clause by clause — pattern-matched against known requirements and defect catalogues, not open-ended advisory. That bounded shape is what lets the skill take a structured, checklist-driven posture; anything outside the pattern (novel structures, contested law, transfer-risk judgement calls) is surfaced and handed back, not resolved silently.

Status of the output. What this skill produces is drafting and review support — not legal advice, and not in itself a privileged work product. Treat storage, sharing, and retention per your firm's work-product and privilege policy; the attorney–client relationship and any privilege attach through the supervising lawyer, not through this skill.

Mode router — ALWAYS run first

Before doing anything else, classify the request into ONE of these modes:

Mode	Trigger pattern	Workflow file
REVIEW_QUICK	"Is this DPA compliant?", "Art. 28(3)(a)–(h) check", short turnaround, sign/no-sign decision needed	workflows/review-quick.md
REVIEW_NEG	"Review this for negotiation", "give me redline points", "what should we push back on", deeper diligence	workflows/review-negotiation.md
DRAFT	"Draft a DPA", "create an AVV", "we need a processor agreement for [X]", greenfield	workflows/draft.md
REDLINE	Counterparty has sent a DPA, user wants tracked-changes / counter-proposals	workflows/redline.md
JOINT_CONTROLLER	"Art. 26", "joint controller", "JCA", or roles screen reveals JC not processor relationship	workflows/joint-controller.md

If unclear, ASK. Do not guess between REVIEW_QUICK and REVIEW_NEG — the depth difference is ~30 min vs ~2–3 h of analytical work, and the output structure is materially different.

Mode flips during the work are allowed and expected. If a REVIEW_QUICK reveals issues serious enough that the user needs negotiation guidance, surface this and offer to escalate to REVIEW_NEG. If a roles screen during DRAFT or REVIEW_* reveals the parties are actually joint controllers, stop and switch to JOINT_CONTROLLER.

Intake — ALWAYS gather these before producing output

Regardless of mode:

1. Roles — Who is controller, who is processor? Confirm explicitly. If both parties might be controllers, run the Art. 26 vs Art. 28 screen in references/art26-joint-controller.md BEFORE proceeding.
2. Perspective — Which side does the user represent? (controller-favorable / processor-favorable / balanced)
3. Language — DE / EN / bilingual? Default: match the language of the source document; if drafting from scratch, ASK.
4. Tier (DRAFT and REDLINE modes) — Tier 1 Commercial / Tier 2 Strict (2021/915 incorporated unmodified) / Tier 3 Hybrid (Sections I+II of 2021/915 + custom Section III). Load references/tier-selection.md and walk the decision tree if the user has not pre-selected. For REVIEW modes, the tier is whatever the source document is — identify it and continue.
5. Processing scenario — Concrete description: subject matter, nature, purpose, data categories, data subjects, duration. Without this, drafting is impossible and review is shallow. If missing, REQUEST it before proceeding.
6. International transfers — Will personal data be transferred outside the EEA, or accessed from outside the EEA? If yes, load references/sccs-module-guide.md and flag SCC requirements early. Note: 2021/915 (Tiers 2/3) does not by itself cover transfers — pair with 2021/914 if needed.
7. Sub-processors — General authorization, specific authorization, or none? This affects clause structure and risk profile. For Tiers 2/3, this maps to Clause 7.7 Option 1/2 of the SCCs.
8. Special categories / Art. 9 / Art. 10 data — If yes, enhanced TOMs and stricter purpose limitation needed; flag at intake.

Hard rules

• Never produce a DPA or review without confirming roles. Mis-classifying a controller–controller relationship as controller–processor produces an invalid agreement and creates liability exposure on both sides.
• Never paste templates verbatim without scenario tailoring. Annex 1 (processing description) MUST reflect the actual processing — generic placeholders defeat Art. 28(3) chapeau.
• Never omit Annex 2 (TOMs). A DPA without specified TOMs fails Art. 28(3)(c) + Art. 32. If the user does not have TOMs ready, advise them to obtain the processor's TOMs document or use the template scaffold as a starting point, but flag this as an open item — never sign-off on an empty Annex 2.
• Sub-processor list (Annex 3) cannot be empty if sub-processors exist. "None at signing" is acceptable only if literally none; otherwise list them by name, location, processing activity, and safeguards.
• International-transfer language is binding only if SCCs are actually executed. Do not draft "the Parties agree to use the SCCs" without specifying module, signature mechanism (separate signature vs. docking via DPA), and Annexes I.A / I.B / I.C / II / III.
• Joint-controller scenarios are NOT processor scenarios. If the screen flags JC, switch to JOINT_CONTROLLER mode. Papering a JC arrangement as a DPA is a substantive defect, not a drafting choice.
• Never advise "sign as is" after a quick review unless every Art. 28(3) item is PASS, no transfers in scope, and the user understands the residual liability allocation. Default posture is "sign with documented residual risk" or "request changes".
• Bilingual output ≠ machine translation. When producing parallel DE/EN, use German legal-style register on the DE side ("der Verantwortliche", "der Auftragsverarbeiter", "Sie"-form for declarations) and standard commercial register on the EN side. Do not back-translate one from the other.

Reference loading order

When entering any mode, load files in this order:

1. Always — references/art28-3-checklist.md (canonical Art. 28 requirements).
2. Mode-dependent:
   • REVIEW_QUICK → + the workflow file. That is enough.
   • REVIEW_NEG → + references/common-defects.md + references/negotiation-fallbacks.md. If the source draft is 2021/915-based, also + references/2021-915-commission-text-{en,de}.md (matching language).
   • DRAFT → + references/tier-selection.md (always); + the relevant template file (templates/dpa-{commercial,strict,hybrid}-{en,de}.md or templates/jca-{en,de}.md); + references/2021-915-commission-text-{en,de}.md if Tier 2 or Tier 3.
   • REDLINE → + references/negotiation-fallbacks.md + references/tier-selection.md + the relevant template as benchmark; + 2021/915 reference if counterparty draft is 2021/915-based.
   • JOINT_CONTROLLER → switch to references/art26-joint-controller.md and templates/jca-{lang}.md. The Art. 28 checklist is no longer the primary lens.
3. Conditional — Load references/sccs-module-guide.md whenever international transfers are in scope OR the source DPA mentions SCCs / Drittlandübermittlung / Standardvertragsklauseln. Note: 2021/915 (Art. 28) and 2021/914 (Chapter V) are different instruments — sccs-module-guide.md covers 2021/914, 2021-915-commission-text-{en,de}.md covers 2021/915.

Output structure by mode

REVIEW_QUICK output

1. Executive summary (3–5 sentences): overall compliance posture and headline issues.
2. Art. 28(3)(a)–(h) coverage table: each obligation marked PASS / WEAK / GAP / DEFECT with one-line reason.
3. Chapeau & framing (subject matter, duration, nature, purpose, data types, categories of data subjects, controller's rights and obligations) — present or missing?
4. SCC adequacy (if transfers in scope): correct module? Annexes filled? TIA referenced?
5. Top 3 issues to fix.
6. Recommendation: sign / sign with side letter / do not sign without changes / escalate to REVIEW_NEG.

REVIEW_NEG output

1. Executive summary + posture recommendation.
2. Roles confirmation + scenario summary (locked-in for the rest of the analysis).
3. Clause-by-clause table: clause # | obligation in scope | current text gist | issue | risk tier (1 = blocker / 2 = material / 3 = polish) | proposed fix.
4. Annex review:
   • Annex 1 (processing description) — sufficient detail for Art. 28(3) chapeau?
   • Annex 2 (TOMs) — concrete, measurable, mapped to Art. 32(1)(a)–(d)?
   • Annex 3 (sub-processors) — list current and define notification/objection mechanism?
   • Annex 4 (transfers + SCCs) — module, Annexes I–III, TIA?
5. Negotiation strategy: must-have / should-have / nice-to-have, sequenced for the actual negotiation.
6. Walk-away conditions — clauses where the user should not sign even after best-efforts negotiation.

DRAFT output

1. Complete DPA / AVV main body in requested language(s).
2. Annex 1 — populated from intake.
3. Annex 2 — template scaffold OR populated if TOMs provided.
4. Annex 3 — populated or "none at signing" with notification mechanism.
5. Annex 4 — only if transfers in scope; correct SCC module incorporated.
6. Drafting notes (separate section): clauses left as alternatives, scenario assumptions made, follow-ups required from the user.

REDLINE output

1. Marked-up version: additions in bold, deletions in strikethrough. Always reproduce the counterparty's clause numbering for traceability.
2. Cover memo: changes summary; rationale by clause; fallback positions (T1 / T2 / T3); expected counterparty pushback per change.
3. Side-letter draft if used to address residual gaps not worth re-opening the main DPA over.

JOINT_CONTROLLER output

1. Roles analysis — why this is JC, not processor; EDPB 07/2020 anchors cited.
2. JCA main body in requested language.
3. Allocation matrix: who handles what (data subject rights, breach notification to authorities, breach notification to data subjects, security, DPIA, transfers, complaints, audits).
4. Public summary under Art. 26(2) — short, plain-language, made available to data subjects (often via privacy notice).
5. Recital indicating that data subjects may exercise rights against either party irrespective of the allocation.

Quality gates — verify before delivery

• Roles confirmed and Art. 28 vs Art. 26 screen passed.
• All Art. 28(3) chapeau elements addressed (subject matter, duration, nature, purpose, data types, categories of data subjects, controller's rights and obligations).
• All eight (a)–(h) obligations covered.
• Sub-processor mechanism defined (general or specific consent + notification + objection right).
• Audit rights specified (frequency, scope, cost allocation, third-party-auditor option, confidentiality).
• Deletion/return choice mechanism defined (Art. 28(3)(g)) with retention carve-outs for legal obligations.
• If transfers: SCC module identified, Annexes I.A/I.B/I.C/II/III in scope, TIA referenced.
• If special categories / Art. 10 data: enhanced TOMs flagged.
• Liability allocation reflects the user's perspective (not generic boilerplate).
• Language consistent throughout (no mixed-language clauses unless bilingual format with parallel columns).
• Practitioner's note appended for client deliverables — what the user should do next.

Style & tone

• German output: formal legal register; "Sie"-form not used (legal entities are referred to as "der Verantwortliche" / "der Auftragsverarbeiter"); standard term is Auftragsverarbeitungsvertrag or AV-Vertrag, not "DPA".
• English output: standard commercial-contract register; defined terms in bold at first use; active voice for obligations ("The Processor shall ...").
• No marketing language. No em dashes. Active voice for processor obligations; passive only where standard contract idiom requires it.
• For client deliverables: end every output with a Practitioner's note paragraph — what the user should actually do next (sign / push back / request information / escalate).

What this skill does not do

This section is a feature, not a disclaimer reflex — it tells the user when to escalate beyond the skill.

• It is not legal advice and does not produce a legal opinion. Output is drafting and analysis for review by qualified counsel admitted in the relevant jurisdiction; it does not create an attorney–client relationship and does not bind any party or authority.
• It defers enforceability opinions. It flags clauses as "unusual," "controller-unfavourable," or "non-compliant with Art. 28(3)" — it does not opine that a clause is "unenforceable" or predict how a court would rule.
• It does not invent legal substance or citations. Article, SCC-clause, and EDPB references come from the reference material or the source document. Where a contested point lacks a citation in the references or the user's input, the skill says so rather than fabricating one.
• It does not certify compliance or guarantee a "safe to sign" outcome. The default posture after a quick review is "sign with documented residual risk" or "request changes," never an unqualified clearance.
• Bilingual output is drafting support, not certified legal translation. Parallel DE/EN clauses are authored in each language's legal register; they are not a sworn or certified translation.

Out of scope (do not silently expand into these)

• Standalone TOMs drafting beyond the Annex 2 scaffold (use Art. 32-specific guidance).
• Full TIA (Transfer Impact Assessment) documents — flag the requirement and hand off to a dedicated Transfer Impact Assessment workflow.
• DPIA documents — hand off to a dedicated DPIA workflow.
• Records of Processing (Verzeichnis von Verarbeitungstätigkeiten) — separate task.
• Substantive data-subject-rights workflows — hand off to a dedicated resource.

If the user asks for any of the above, surface that this skill ends at the DPA boundary and offer to switch.

Liability

This skill is provided "as is" under the Apache License 2.0 — without warranties of any kind, and subject to the limitation of liability in §§ 7–8 of that license. It is not legal advice and creates no attorney–client relationship. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the author (Oliver Schmidt-Prietz, Rechtsanwalt, Germany) accepts no liability for any use of, or reliance on, this skill or its output; users use it at their own responsibility and are solely responsible for validating results and for their own compliance decisions.