Review the governance and risk posture of an AI feature — classify its risk tier by impact (who is affected, reversibility, autonomy, sensitive-data and rights exposure), assign accountable human ownership, require appropriate human oversight (advisory / human-in-the-loop / human-on-the-loop) matched to the tier, check user-facing AI disclosure and consent, data-use and retention posture, a model/feature card documenting intended use and known limits, and a map from applicable obligations (EU AI Act tiers, NIST AI RMF functions) to concrete controls. Composes ai-sdlc-operating-model, agent-governance-audit, and human-approval-boundary rather than restating them. Use for an AI risk assessment, an AI feature's go/no-go governance review, or AI-policy readiness. Do NOT use to audit one change's process compliance (agent-governance-audit), enumerate technical attack threats (ai-threat-modeler), or define the SDLC lifecycle (ai-sdlc-operating-model).
Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.
Quelldateien prüfen
Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Ein direkter Befehl überspringt den Prüf-Prompt. Prüfen Sie die Quelle, bevor Sie ihn ausführen.
Review the governance and risk posture of an AI feature — classify its risk tier by impact (who is affected, reversibility, autonomy, sensitive-data and rights exposure), assign accountable human ownership, require appropriate human oversight (advisory / human-in-the-loop / human-on-the-loop) matched to the tier, check user-facing AI disclosure and consent, data-use and retention posture, a model/feature card documenting intended use and known limits, and a map from applicable obligations (EU AI Act tiers, NIST AI RMF functions) to concrete controls. Composes ai-sdlc-operating-model, agent-governance-audit, and human-approval-boundary rather than restating them. Use for an AI risk assessment, an AI feature's go/no-go governance review, or AI-policy readiness. Do NOT use to audit one change's process compliance (agent-governance-audit), enumerate technical attack threats (ai-threat-modeler), or define the SDLC lifecycle (ai-sdlc-operating-model).
AI Governance & Risk Reviewer
Purpose
Review whether an AI feature is governed responsibly: is its risk understood
and tiered, is a named human accountable, is the human-oversight model matched
to the impact, are users told they're interacting with AI where it matters, is
data use and retention appropriate, is there a model/feature card, and do the
applicable regulatory obligations map to concrete controls that actually
exist. The output is a governance verdict — with the gaps that must close
before a high-risk feature ships. This is the organizational/risk layer, above
the technical attack surface (ai-threat-modeler) and distinct from auditing
one change's process compliance (agent-governance-audit); it composes the
governance pack rather than restating it.
Use When
Use when: performing an AI risk assessment, an AI feature's governance
go/no-go, or checking AI-policy readiness before launch.
Use when: deciding the required human-oversight level for an AI feature by
its impact, or assigning accountable ownership.
Use when: mapping regulatory obligations (EU AI Act risk tiers, NIST AI RMF
GOVERN/MAP/MEASURE/MANAGE) to the feature's concrete controls.
Do NOT use when: auditing whether ONE change/PR followed governance process
— agent-governance-audit (evidence-based per-control audit).
Do NOT use when: enumerating technical threats (ai-threat-modeler) or
defining the human+agent SDLC lifecycle (ai-sdlc-operating-model).
Inputs to Inspect
The AI feature's purpose and impact: what decision/action it drives, who is
affected (internal, customers, the public), and the consequence of a wrong
output.
Autonomy and oversight: does it advise, act with a human in the loop, or
act autonomously; where a human can intervene or reverse.
Data posture: what data it uses (personal, sensitive, tenant), where it
goes (provider retention), consent and lawful basis, retention/deletion.
Transparency: is the user told it's AI; are limitations disclosed; is there
a model/feature card (intended use, known failure modes, out-of-scope use).
Accountability: who owns the feature's outcomes; escalation and incident
ownership (incident-response-runbook).
Applicable obligations: regulatory/contractual/policy requirements
(EU AI Act tiering, sector rules, internal AI policy, NIST AI RMF as the
risk method) — and existing governance artifacts from the Phase 1.5 pack.
Workflow
Classify the risk tier. Score impact by: who is affected and how many,
reversibility of a wrong output, degree of autonomy, sensitivity of data,
and effect on people's rights/access/safety. Land on a tier (e.g.
minimal / limited / high / unacceptable) using
references/ai-governance-framework.md.
No feature purpose/impact available → Stop Conditions.
Match oversight to tier. Higher tiers require stronger human oversight:
advisory-only (human decides) → human-in-the-loop (human approves each
action) → human-on-the-loop (human monitors, can intervene). Verify the
feature's actual oversight matches its tier; a high-impact autonomous
feature with no human gate is a blocking gap (compose
human-approval-boundary for the gate design).
Assign accountability. A named human owner accountable for outcomes,
not a team abstraction. Escalation path defined and tied to
incident-response-runbook.
Check transparency and consent. Users are told they're interacting with
AI where it affects them; limitations are disclosed; consent/lawful basis
for data use exists where required. Absent disclosure on a user-affecting
feature is a gap.
Check data governance. What's sent to the model, provider retention and
training-use terms, PII/sensitive handling, retention/deletion — compose
sensitive-disclosure-guard for the leak surface and
tenant-isolation-reviewer for tenant data. Governance says whether the
use is permitted; those skills check the mechanism.
Require a model/feature card. Intended use, in-scope and out-of-scope
use, known limitations and failure modes, evaluation summary
(ai-evaluation-harness), and the human-oversight model. Missing card on a
material feature is a gap.
Map obligations to controls. For each applicable obligation (EU AI Act
tier duties, NIST AI RMF function, internal policy), name the concrete
control that satisfies it and where it lives — or mark it a gap. Do not
assert regulatory conclusions as legal advice; flag items needing legal
review.
Verdict and gaps. Governance PASS / CONDITIONAL / BLOCK with the
specific gaps that must close, each routed to an owning skill/owner and a
named risk acceptor via human-approval-boundary for anything shipped with
residual risk.
Risk tier assigned from impact, reversibility, autonomy, data
sensitivity, and rights exposure — not from feature size.
Oversight model matched to tier; a high-impact autonomous feature with
no human gate is flagged blocking.
A named human owner is accountable for outcomes; escalation is defined.
User-facing AI disclosure and consent/lawful basis checked for
user-affecting features.
Data-use, provider retention/training, and retention/deletion posture
reviewed; mechanism checks routed to the owning skills.
A model/feature card exists (intended use, limits, eval summary,
oversight) for material features.
Obligations map to concrete controls or explicit gaps; legal-review
items flagged, not asserted as legal conclusions.
Gotchas
Risk tier is about impact, not sophistication: a simple model that auto-
denies loan applications is higher-risk than a complex one that suggests
playlists. Tier by consequence.
"There's a human somewhere" is not oversight — oversight requires the human
to see the decision, have time and information to intervene, and not be
rubber-stamping (see human-agent-trust-reviewer for consent fatigue).
Disclosure gaps hide in "helpful" UX: a support bot that never says it's a
bot, an AI-written email sent as a person. Material AF interaction needs
disclosure.
Provider data terms are part of governance: sending customer data to a model
that trains on it can breach contracts and privacy law even if technically
secure. Check the terms, not just the transport.
This is not legal advice: regulatory tiering (is this "high-risk" under the
EU AI Act?) often needs counsel — map and flag, don't rule.
Governance without evidence is theater: a policy that says "human oversight"
with no gate in the code is a gap — cross-check against
agent-governance-audit for actual compliance.
Stop Conditions
No feature purpose or impact is described — stop; risk tiering needs to know
what the feature does and to whom.
The review surfaces a likely unacceptable-risk use (e.g. prohibited
practice) — escalate to a named human and legal; do not bless it.
The question is really one change's process compliance, the technical threat
model, or the SDLC lifecycle — hand to the owning skill.
A governance gap corresponds to an active harm in production — route to
incident-response-runbook.
Supporting Files
references/ai-governance-framework.md
— the risk-tiering rubric, the oversight-to-tier matrix, model/feature card
template, and the obligation→control mapping scaffold (EU AI Act tiers,
NIST AI RMF GOVERN/MAP/MEASURE/MANAGE).
evals/evals.json — trigger + behavior cases.
evals/trigger-evals.json — discrimination within the AI-platform-ops
cluster and against agent-governance-audit and ai-sdlc-operating-model.
