Determines whether a technology qualifies as an AI system under Art. 3(1) of the EU AI Act and classifies its risk tier (prohibited, high-risk, GPAI with systemic risk, limited risk, minimal risk). This skill should be used when the user asks to "classify an AI system under the AI Act", "determine the AI Act risk tier", "check if something is an AI system", "assess prohibited practices", "check high-risk classification", "determine Art. 6 exception applicability", or mentions "KI-Verordnung", "Risikoklassifizierung", Art. 5, Annex III, or GPAI systemic risk.
Determines whether a technology qualifies as an AI system under Art. 3(1) of the EU AI Act and classifies its risk tier (prohibited, high-risk, GPAI with systemic risk, limited risk, minimal risk). This skill should be used when the user asks to "classify an AI system under the AI Act", "determine the AI Act risk tier", "check if something is an AI system", "assess prohibited practices", "check high-risk classification", "determine Art. 6 exception applicability", or mentions "KI-Verordnung", "Risikoklassifizierung", Art. 5, Annex III, or GPAI systemic risk.
Determine whether a technology qualifies as an AI system under Art. 3(1) AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) and classify its risk tier.
Disclaimer (show at session start, do not block)
Important: This skill provides structured AI system classification guidance based on the EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689), Commission guidelines, and the OECD AI framework. It is not legal advice. Final classification decisions should involve qualified legal counsel with AI Act expertise. Effective dates for high-risk obligations reflect the AI Omnibus 2026 postponement (Annex III: 2 December 2027; Annex I: 2 August 2028).
When to Search the Web
On activation — always search for:
EU AI Act Commission guidelines AI system definition 2025 2026
EU AI Act high-risk classification guidelines Art. 6 latest
During Annex III assessment — search for:
EU AI Act Annex III delegated acts modifications [current year]
EU AI Act high-risk classification new categories
For GPAI assessment — search for:
EU AI Office GPAI systemic risk threshold FLOP [current year]
EU AI Office GPAI Code of Practice latest
EU AI Act Art. 51 general purpose AI model classification
For open-source exception — search for:
EU AI Act open source exception Art. 2(12) guidance [current year]
EU AI Act Art. 53(2) GPAI open source partial exemption
Workflow: Ask Questions ONE AT A TIME
Phase 1: Scope Gate
Prior Assessment Context (optional):
"If you have previously run another EU AI Act skill, you may paste the Assessment Context block here. This pre-fills several questions and avoids redundant input."
If context is provided, pre-populate applicable fields and skip questions that are already answered. If any field conflicts with user answers, flag the inconsistency.
Q1 — System Description:
"Please provide a brief description of the AI technology or system you want to classify. Include: what it does, how it works (at a high level), who uses it, and in what context."
Based on the Q1 system description, assess whether any scope exclusion signals are present:
If the description signals a potential exclusion (military use, personal/household use, pure R&D, pre-market testing, international law enforcement cooperation) → ask a targeted confirmation question for that specific exclusion only. Example: "Your description mentions this is for internal research only — is this system used exclusively for scientific R&D with no deployment to end users? (Art. 2(6))"
If the description signals an open-source component → ask a targeted question: "You mentioned this uses an open-source model. Is the system itself released under a free and open-source license? (Art. 2(12))"
If no exclusion signals are present in the description → skip Q2 entirely with a brief note: "Based on your description, no scope exclusions appear to apply. Proceeding with the AI system definition test."
If genuinely unclear whether an exclusion might apply → present relevant exclusions conversationally (not as a lettered list), focusing only on plausible ones given the system description.
If a military, international law enforcement, personal use, pure R&D, or pre-market exclusion applies: Output exclusion analysis with legal basis → STOP.
If the system is released under a free and open-source license: Run the dedicated open-source checklist from references/scope-exclusions.md.
For AI systems: Apply Checklist I (Art. 2(12)) — 3-step process, 6 verification questions
For GPAI models: Apply Checklist II (Art. 53(2)) — 3-step process with parameter accessibility check
If exemption applies → output analysis → STOP
If exemption does NOT apply (e.g., high-risk, prohibited, or Art. 50 system) → continue to Phase 2
Walk through 7 criteria one at a time, providing examples for each:
Criterion 1 — Machine-based operation:
"Is this system operated by machine-based processes (maschinengestütztes System)? This includes any software or hardware that processes information computationally."
Criterion 2 — Degree of autonomy (Autonomiegrad):
"What degree of autonomy does the system exhibit? Use the ISO 22989 scale:
Level 0: No automation — fully human-controlled
Level 1: Assistance — system suggests, human decides
Level 2: Partial automation — some subfunctions automated, human controls overall
Level 3: Conditional automation — autonomous in specific contexts, human ready to intervene
Level 4: High automation — operates parts of mission without intervention
Level 5: Full automation — completes entire mission without intervention
Level 6: True autonomy — adapts goals without oversight"
Criterion 3 — Adaptability after deployment:
"Can the system adapt its behavior after deployment? Does it learn from new data, user interactions, or environmental feedback? (Note: this includes continuous learning, online learning, and reinforcement from human feedback.)"
Criterion 4 — Explicit or implicit goals:
"Does the system have defined goals — either explicitly programmed (e.g., 'classify images') or implicitly learned through training data (e.g., learned optimization objectives)?"
Criterion 5 — Inference capability:
"Does the system derive outputs through inference — i.e., making predictions, drawing conclusions, or generating recommendations beyond simple deterministic rules? This distinguishes AI from traditional rule-based software."
Criterion 6 — Output generation:
"What outputs does the system generate? This includes:
Biometric categorization for sensitive characteristics
Art. 5(1)(g)
[assessment]
[brief reasoning]
8
Real-time remote biometric identification in public (law enforcement)
Art. 5(1)(h)
[assessment]
[brief reasoning]
After presenting the table, ask: "Do any flagged items need discussion, or should I explore any I marked 'Not applicable'?"
Deep-dive only on items marked "Possibly relevant" or "Likely relevant," or on any items the user asks about, using references/prohibited-practices.md for detailed edge cases, boundary analysis, gray zone scenarios, and multi-category interactions.
If ANY prohibition is flagged:
WARNING — PROHIBITED AI PRACTICE DETECTED
Art. 5(1)([x]) AI Act: [description]
This AI system falls within the scope of a PROHIBITED practice.
Deployment, placing on market, or putting into service is PROHIBITED.
Legal basis: Art. 5(1)([x]), Recital [XX]
Penalty: Art. 99(3) — up to EUR 35,000,000 or 7% of total worldwide annual turnover
IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED: Consult qualified legal counsel.
→ STOP (unless user wants to explore exceptions listed in Art. 5).
Step 2: High-Risk Check — Annex I (Product Safety)
Auto-assessment (internal — based on Q1 system description):
Using sector, use case, and deployment context signals from the system description, automatically map the system to relevant Annex III categories. Categorize each as:
Relevant — system description clearly signals this category (e.g., HR screening tool → Employment)
"Do you agree with this assessment, or should I re-examine any categories?"
User confirms or overrides. If the system description contradicts a user override (e.g., user says "Not applicable" for Employment but system processes CVs), flag the contradiction and assess fully regardless.
Detailed assessment proceeds only for categories marked "Relevant" or "Potentially relevant" (or any the user asks to examine).
"An Annex III category was triggered. Now checking the Art. 6(3) exception — does this system perform only a 'narrow procedural task' or 'complementary human activity' that does not replace or influence human assessment?"
Apply 4 exception conditions:
System performs narrow procedural task
System improves result of previously completed human activity
System detects decision-making patterns without replacing/influencing human assessment
System performs preparatory task to an assessment relevant to Annex III use cases
Special re-exception: Art. 6(3) last sentence — exception does NOT apply if the system performs profiling of natural persons (Art. 4(4) GDPR).
Step 3.5: High-risk depth assessment (mandatory if Annex I OR Annex III hits)
If Step 2 (Annex I) or Step 3 (Annex III) produced a hit — or the case is borderline and requires the Commission Guidelines depth analysis — perform a full high-risk depth assessment before finalising the verdict. Work through the Art. 6 classification grounded in the Commission's draft Art. 6(5) classification guidelines: (1) confirm the Annex I product / Annex III area trigger; (2) apply the Art. 6(3) exception conditions (narrow procedural task, complementary human activity, no replacement of human assessment, preparatory task — subject to the profiling re-exception); (3) document whether the system is a safety component or a product itself; (4) produce a structured decision block (tier + reasoning + cited Annex/Article); and (5) capture the result as a JSON interchange artefact and a short practitioner memo. Only once this depth analysis is complete should you consolidate the final risk-tier classification.
Because high-risk classification is the most consequential tier and the most-recently-updated by Commission guidance, give it the deepest treatment: if any input is ambiguous (e.g., whether the deployment falls inside an Annex III area, or whether the Art. 6(3) exception genuinely applies), state the assumption explicitly and flag it for human review rather than resolving it silently.
"Is this system based on, or does it incorporate, a general-purpose AI model (Art. 3(63))? If so, does the underlying model pose systemic risk (Art. 3(65), Art. 51)?"
If GPAI model without systemic risk → transparency obligations (Art. 53)
If GPAI model WITH systemic risk → full Art. 55 obligations apply
Apply FLOP threshold: 10^25 floating point operations (Art. 51(2))
Search for latest GPAI classifications and threshold updates.
Step 5: Transparency Obligations Check (Art. 50)
"Does this system trigger any transparency obligations under Art. 50?"
Obligation
Trigger
Article
Interaction disclosure
System interacts directly with natural persons
Art. 50(1)
Synthetic content marking
System generates synthetic audio, image, video, text
Art. 50(2)
Emotion recognition disclosure
System performs emotion recognition
Art. 50(3)
Deepfake labeling
System generates deep fakes
Art. 50(4)
For detailed implementation guidance — including the Code of Practice's multi-layered marking framework (metadata + watermarking), deployer labelling requirements, exceptions, boundary analysis, and interaction with other AI Act provisions — see references/art50-transparency.md.
Classification Flow Decision Tree
Note: GPAI assessment runs in parallel with Steps 1–3. Step 4 (GPAI Model?) is shown sequentially in the tree below for readability, but GPAI determination is independent of the risk-tier path. A high-risk AI system can simultaneously be a GPAI model with systemic risk — in which case both regimes apply. Always evaluate Step 4 on every system, regardless of the outcome of Steps 1–3.
┌─────────────────┐
│ SCOPE GATE │
│ Art. 2 Check │
└────────┬────────┘
│
Exclusion applies?
├── YES → STOP (out of scope)
└── NO
│
┌────────▼────────┐
│ AI SYSTEM TEST │
│ Art. 3(1) │
│ 7 Criteria │
└────────┬────────┘
│
Is it an AI system?
├── NO → STOP (not an AI system)
└── YES
│
┌──────────────▼──────────────┐
│ RISK CLASSIFICATION │
│ (assess in order) │
└──────────────┬──────────────┘
│
┌────────────▼────────────┐
│ Step 1: Art. 5 │
│ Prohibited Practices? │
├── YES → PROHIBITED │
└── NO │
│
┌────────────▼────────────┐
│ Step 2: Annex I │
│ Product Safety? │
├── YES → HIGH-RISK │
│ (Art. 6(1)) │
└── NO │
│
┌────────────▼────────────┐
│ Step 3: Annex III │
│ Application-Based? │
├── YES ──┐ │
└── NO │ │
│ ▼ │
│ Art. 6(3) Exception? │
│ ├── NO → HIGH-RISK │
│ │ (Art. 6(2)) │
│ └── YES → NOT high │
│ (Art. 6(4) doc) │
│ │
┌─▼───────────────────────┐
│ Step 4: GPAI Model? │
├── Systemic risk │
│ → Art. 53 + 55 │
├── Standard GPAI │
│ → Art. 53 │
└── No GPAI │
│
┌────────────▼────────────┐
│ Step 5: Art. 50 │
│ Transparency Trigger? │
├── YES → LIMITED RISK │
└── NO → MINIMAL RISK │
(Art. 4 only) │
└─────────────────────────┘
Phase 4: Classification Dashboard Output
After completing all phases, output:
## AI Act Classification Report
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
System: [name]
Date: [date]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
AI System (Art. 3(1)): [YES/NO] — [confidence]
Risk Tier: [Prohibited/High-Risk/GPAI-Systemic/Limited/Minimal]
Classification Basis: [Art. 5(1x) / Annex I Nr. X / Annex III Nr. X / Art. 50 / None]
Art. 6(3) Exception: [Applicable/Not Applicable/N/A]
Scope Exclusions: [None / Art. 2(x) applies]
GPAI Model: [Yes — systemic risk / Yes — standard / No / N/A]
Transparency (Art. 50): [Applicable — Art. 50(1)-(4) / None]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
FLAGS:
[flags if any — examples:]
[PROHIBITED PRACTICE — Art. 5(1)(x) — immediate legal review required]
[QUASI-PROVIDER RISK — modifications may trigger Art. 25]
[GPAI SYSTEMIC RISK — Art. 55 obligations apply]
[PROFILING DETECTED — Art. 6(3) exception excluded per last sentence]
[OPEN-SOURCE — partial exemption conditions met/not met]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
ASSESSMENT CONTEXT (paste into next skill)
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
System: [name]
Classification: [risk tier]
Basis: [legal basis]
Role: [from prior assessment or TBD]
Quasi-Provider: [from prior assessment or TBD]
Sector: [sector]
Jurisdiction: [list]
Org Size: [size]
Art. 50: [applicable triggers]
GPAI: [yes/no, systemic risk]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
NEXT STEPS:
→ Determine the organizational role (provider / deployer / importer / distributor)
→ Map the applicable obligations to that role and risk tier
→ Generate formal assessment documentation
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Critical Reminders
Art. 5 prohibitions are absolute — no exception for existing deployments (grace period ended 2 Feb 2025)
High-risk classification can change — Commission may adopt delegated acts modifying Annex III (Art. 7)
GPAI systemic risk threshold may be updated — Commission may update 10^25 FLOP threshold (Art. 51(2))
Art. 6(3) exception is narrow — profiling always re-triggers high-risk even if exception would otherwise apply
Open-source is not a blanket exemption — high-risk, prohibited, and Art. 50 systems are not exempted
Always search for latest guidance — Commission guidelines are actively being published through 2026
Document reasoning — all classification decisions should be documented per Art. 6(4) for non-high-risk systems
Enforcement context — reference references/enforcement-framework.md for penalty tiers (EUR 35M/7% for Art. 5 violations) and enforcement risk assessment
Jurisdiction-specific requirements — reference references/jurisdiction-requirements.md for national authority, employment law, and sector regulator requirements per deployment jurisdiction
Art. 50 transparency detail — reference references/art50-transparency.md for the full Art. 50 framework including the Code of Practice's multi-layered marking architecture, deployer labelling requirements, exceptions, and boundary analysis
Part of the EU AI Act suite
This skill works on its own, but it's designed to interlock with my other EU AI Act skills — install any individually, or use them together for an end-to-end workflow:
EU AI Act Quick Assessment — 15–25 min preliminary triage
EU AI Act High-Risk Classifier — depth Annex I / Annex III assessment
EU AI Act Role Determination — provider / deployer / importer / distributor (incl. Art. 25)
EU AI Act Obligations Mapper — obligations by role and risk tier
EU AI Act Examination Report Generator — audit-ready compliance report
EU AI Act Knowledge Base — Q&A over the Act + Commission guidelines
Each is available as a separate skill — install only what you need.
