| name | write-dpia |
| description | Write a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) for high-risk personal data processing. Required by GDPR Article 35 when processing is likely to result in high risk to individuals. Produces a structured assessment with risks, mitigations, and DPO review. |
| argument-hint | [processing activity or feature involving personal data] |
| user-invocable | true |
| allowed-tools | Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Glob, Grep |
Write DPIA
Write a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) for $ARGUMENTS. A DPIA is mandatory under GDPR Article 35 when processing is likely to result in high risk to the rights and freedoms of individuals — including profiling, large-scale processing of special categories, systematic monitoring of public areas, and systematic/extensive automated evaluation of personal aspects (ML scoring, behavioural analytics, risk profiling) used to make or inform decisions about individuals.
Step 1: Describe the Processing
Before assessing risk, fully document what the processing involves:
### Processing Description
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| **What personal data** | [List specific data categories — name, email, location, health, financial, behavioural, etc.] |
| **Whose data** | [Data subjects — customers, employees, children, patients, public] |
| **Purpose** | [Why this processing is needed — be specific, not "business purposes"] |
| **How processed** | [Collection method, storage, analysis, automated decisions, profiling] |
| **Retention period** | [How long data is kept and deletion/anonymisation policy] |
| **Recipients** | [Who receives the data — internal teams, processors, third countries] |
| **Data flows** | [Source → processing → storage → output — include cross-border transfers] |
Scan the codebase for data models, API schemas, and configuration that reveal what data is collected and how it flows. Use Glob and Grep to find relevant schemas, models, and privacy-related configuration.
Output: Completed processing description table with data flow diagram.
Step 2: Assess Necessity and Proportionality
Evaluate whether the processing is justified under GDPR Article 5 principles:
### Necessity and Proportionality
| Principle | Assessment | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| **Lawful basis** | [Which Art. 6 basis — consent, contract, legitimate interest, etc.] | [Where this is documented/implemented] |
| **Purpose limitation** | [Is data used only for the stated purpose?] | [Code paths that access the data] |
| **Data minimisation** | [Is every field necessary? Could any be removed?] | [Fields collected vs fields actually used] |
| **Accuracy** | [How is data kept accurate? Can subjects correct it?] | [Update mechanisms, validation] |
| **Storage limitation** | [Is retention period justified? Is deletion automated?] | [TTL configs, cleanup jobs, retention policies] |
| **Integrity and confidentiality** | [Encryption at rest/transit, access controls, audit logging] | [Security measures in place] |
For each principle, provide a verdict: Met, Partially met (with remediation needed), or Not met (blocks processing).
Output: Proportionality assessment table with verdicts and evidence.
Step 3: Identify Risks to Individuals
Assess risks from the individual's perspective, not the organisation's. Consider what harm could occur if data is lost, stolen, misused, or inaccurate.
### Risk Assessment
| # | Risk | Description | Likelihood | Severity | Overall Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | [Risk name] | [What could happen to the individual] | [Low/Medium/High] | [Low/Medium/High] | [Low/Medium/High/Very High] |
| R2 | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
Risk categories to evaluate (assess each — mark N/A if genuinely not applicable):
- Unauthorised access — data breach exposing personal data
- Excessive collection — collecting more data than necessary
- Function creep — data used for purposes beyond original consent
- Inaccurate decisions — automated decisions based on wrong/incomplete data
- Lack of transparency — individuals unaware of processing
- Inability to exercise rights — cannot access, correct, or delete data
- Re-identification — pseudonymised data linked back to individuals
- Cross-border exposure — data transferred to jurisdictions with weaker protections
- Discriminatory effects — processing that disproportionately impacts protected groups
- Financial data + behavioural profiling — combining financial records (transactions, credit, income) with behavioural or ML-derived signals (spending patterns, risk scores, lifestyle inference). This combination enables creditworthiness profiling and financial exclusion, triggering GDPR Art. 35(3)(a) automated decision-making provisions and requiring explicit assessment of discriminatory impact on protected groups
Likelihood × Severity matrix:
| Low severity | Medium severity | High severity |
|---|
| High likelihood | Medium | High | Very High |
| Medium likelihood | Low | Medium | High |
| Low likelihood | Low | Low | Medium |
Output: Completed risk table with all applicable categories assessed.
Step 4: Define Mitigation Measures
For every risk rated Medium or above, define specific mitigations:
### Mitigation Measures
| # | Measure | Risk(s) addressed | Implementation status | Residual risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M1 | [Specific technical or organisational measure] | R1, R3 | [Implemented / In progress / Planned] | [Must be lower than inherent risk] |
| M2 | ... | ... | ... | ... |
Mitigation categories:
- Technical — encryption, pseudonymisation, access controls, automated deletion, audit logging
- Organisational — policies, training, DPIAs for changes, breach procedures
- Contractual — data processing agreements, standard contractual clauses for transfers
- Rights mechanisms — subject access request process, consent management, opt-out capability
Every risk must map to at least one mitigation. Every mitigation must reduce residual risk below the inherent risk level.
Output: Mitigation table with residual risk ratings demonstrating risk reduction.
Step 5: Obtain DPO Opinion
Provide an assessment section for DPO review:
### DPO Review
| Item | Assessment |
|---|---|
| **DPIA required?** | [Yes — state which Art. 35 trigger applies] |
| **Processing lawful?** | [Yes/No — cite lawful basis and evidence] |
| **Proportionate?** | [Yes/No — are all principles met?] |
| **Risks adequately mitigated?** | [Yes/No — are all residual risks acceptable?] |
| **DPO recommendation** | [Proceed / Proceed with conditions / Do not proceed] |
| **Conditions (if any)** | [What must be done before processing begins] |
| **Review date** | [When this DPIA should be reviewed — max 12 months] |
**DPO signature:** _______________ **Date:** _______________
Output: DPO review section with clear recommendation.
Step 6: Determine Supervisory Authority Consultation
Assess whether Article 36 prior consultation is required:
### Supervisory Authority Consultation
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| **Any residual risks rated High or Very High after mitigation?** | [Yes/No] |
| **Can residual risk be further reduced?** | [Yes/No — what has been tried] |
| **Prior consultation required?** | [Yes — if residual risk remains high despite mitigations / No] |
| **Supervisory authority** | [Relevant DPA — e.g., ICO, CNIL, BfDI] |
| **Consultation timeline** | [Must consult before processing begins; DPA has 8 weeks to respond] |
Prior consultation is required when: residual risk remains high despite mitigations and the controller cannot sufficiently reduce the risk.
Output: Consultation determination with rationale.
Rules
- Process before technology. Describe what you are doing with personal data before discussing how you implement it technically. The DPIA assesses the processing activity, not the software.
- Always take the individual's perspective. "We might get fined" is not a risk. "An individual's health data could be exposed, causing distress and discrimination" is a risk.
- Risks must be specific, not generic. "Data breach" is not a risk assessment. "Unauthorised access to customer financial records via unencrypted API responses, leading to identity theft" is a risk assessment.
- Residual risk must be lower than inherent risk. If a mitigation doesn't reduce the risk level, it's not effective — find a better mitigation or escalate to DPO.
- Never skip the necessity assessment. If the processing isn't necessary and proportionate, no amount of mitigation makes it lawful. Step 2 can stop the entire DPIA.
- DPIAs are living documents. Set a review date. Processing changes require DPIA updates.
Output Format
# DPIA: [Processing Activity Name]
**Version:** [number] | **Date:** [date] | **Owner:** [role] | **Status:** [Draft/Under review/Approved]
## 1. Processing Description
[From Step 1 — data, subjects, purpose, flows, retention, recipients]
## 2. Necessity and Proportionality
[From Step 2 — principle-by-principle assessment with verdicts]
## 3. Risk Assessment
[From Step 3 — risk table with likelihood, severity, overall rating]
## 4. Mitigation Measures
[From Step 4 — measure table with residual risk ratings]
## 5. DPO Review
[From Step 5 — recommendation and conditions]
## 6. Supervisory Authority Consultation
[From Step 6 — determination and rationale]
## Appendices
- A. Data flow diagram
- B. Legal basis analysis
- C. Third-party processor list
Related Skills
/grc-lead:compliance-audit — audit GDPR compliance across the system. Use to validate that DPIA mitigations are implemented organisation-wide./grc-lead:risk-assessment — broader risk methodology. The DPIA risk approach aligns with the organisation's risk framework.
