Skip to main content 홈 크리에이터 thomasmoreai legal-skills-open regulatory-guard
regulatory-guard Audit a website or web app for strict compliance with applicable legislation across four domains — privacy (GDPR, CCPA, ePrivacy), accessibility (WCAG 2.2 AA, ADA, EAA), consumer & e-commerce (DSA, DMA, CCPA-sale, CAN-SPAM), and AI / content (EU AI Act, copyright, DMCA). Produces a tiered compliance report with cited evidence, severity, and concrete remediation steps. Use when releasing publicly, expanding to a new jurisdiction, or hardening before a regulator inquiry.
설치로 이동 Skills Marketplace 커뮤니티가 만든 AI 스킬을 발견하고 탐색하세요.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
직접 명령은 검토 Prompt를 거치지 않습니다. 실행하기 전에 소스를 확인하세요.
npx skills add https://github.com/ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open --skill regulatory-guard명령은 한 줄로 유지됩니다. 복사하기 전에 가로로 스크롤해 전체 내용을 확인하세요.
로컬 사본을 원하시나요? SkillsMP에서 현재 제공할 수 있는 파일을 다운로드하세요.
Zip 다운로드 다운로드 중... 이 저장소의 다른 Skills fetching-arbitration-rules Use when retrieving arbitration institutional rules (ICC, LCIA, SCC, SIAC, HKIAC, VIAC, МКАС/МАК при ТПП України, UNCITRAL) — fetching current version, verifying redaction applicable to the date of arbitration agreement, constructing URLs for official rule texts
determining-pl-request-regime Use when choosing the Polish legal regime for letters, requests, applications, complaints, petitions, public-information requests, KPA filings, PPSA complaints, RODO access requests, registry extracts, court-file access, tax/ZUS/cudzoziemcy/USC procedures, or professional lawyer letters. Prevents mixing UDIP, KPA, PPSA, RODO, registry, special-procedure, and advocate/radca letter regimes.
applying-new-york-convention Use when preparing applications for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Poland, applications for setting aside arbitral awards under KPC art. 1205–1211, or opposing such applications — mapping Article V of the 1958 New York Convention to art. 1214–1215 of the Polish KPC, identifying grounds for refusal, structuring public policy arguments
name regulatory-guard title Regulatory Guard description Audit a website or web app for strict compliance with applicable legislation across four domains — privacy (GDPR, CCPA, ePrivacy), accessibility (WCAG 2.2 AA, ADA, EAA), consumer & e-commerce (DSA, DMA, CCPA-sale, CAN-SPAM), and AI / content (EU AI Act, copyright, DMCA). Produces a tiered compliance report with cited evidence, severity, and concrete remediation steps. Use when releasing publicly, expanding to a new jurisdiction, or hardening before a regulator inquiry. author vllnt author_url https://github.com/vllnt/skills/tree/main/regulatory-guard license MIT version 0.1.0 execution_mode open jurisdiction cross-jurisdiction practice regulatory language en
Regulatory Guard
A standalone audit skill that verifies a website or web app strictly follows the legislation that applies to its users, content, and jurisdictions.
Use when:
Preparing a public launch (B2C or B2B-with-consumer-touchpoints)
Expanding to a new market (EU, UK, California, Brazil, etc.)
Hardening before a regulator inquiry, DPIA review, or enterprise procurement
Adding AI features that touch user-generated content
Periodic compliance posture check (recommended quarterly)
Triggers: "compliance audit", "GDPR check", "is this site GDPR compliant", "WCAG audit", "accessibility audit", "ADA compliance", "EAA check", "CCPA compliance", "cookie banner audit", "AI Act compliance", "regulatory check", "legal audit", "audit website", "audit web app", "compliance posture".
Disclaimer. This skill produces a structured technical audit, not legal advice. High-severity findings should be reviewed by qualified counsel. Jurisdictional applicability is heuristic — when in doubt, mark as APPLIES? and escalate.
Agent Capabilities
Capability Used For Required Fallback Browser navigation (Playwright / agent-browser) Live page inspection, network capture, cookie enumeration Recommended Static review of source files only File read Read source/config to find handlers, env, headers, policies Yes — HTTP request (curl / fetch) Headers, robots.txt, sitemap.xml, .well-known Recommended — Sub-agent dispatch Parallel domain audits Recommended Sequential in main thread
This skill remains functional in a "static-only" mode (no browser) but loses the ability to verify cookie banners, runtime trackers, and rendered ARIA — flag those checks as UNVERIFIED in that case.
Table of Contents
Quick Start Audit Scope Detection Audit Domains Severity Tiers Execution Flow Evidence Format
Quick Start
regulatory-guard audit https://example.com
regulatory-guard audit http://localhost:3000 --source ./
regulatory-guard audit https://example.com --domain privacy
regulatory-guard audit https://example.com --domain accessibility
regulatory-guard audit https://example.com --domain consumer
regulatory-guard audit https://example.com --domain ai-content
regulatory-guard audit https://example.com --jurisdictions EU,US-CA
Without a CLI router, agents invoke this skill by following the Execution Flow below using their native tools.
Audit Scope Detection Before running checks, determine what applies. Skip irrelevant law — false positives erode trust.
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ SCOPE DETECTION (run first) │
├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 1. Target users (geo)? ─────► EU? US? CA? UK? BR? Global? │
│ 2. Data collected? ─────────► PII? sensitive? minors? │
│ 3. Commerce? ───────────────► sales, ads, marketplace? │
│ 4. AI features? ────────────► generation? recommendation? │
│ 5. Service size? ───────────► VLOP/VLOSE? gatekeeper? │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
│
▼
Build APPLICABILITY MATRIX → only audit what applies
Heuristics for jurisdictional applicability:
Signal Likely applies i18n includes EU language(s); EU pricing; ".eu" / EU TLDGDPR + ePrivacy + EAA + DSA Any user from EU possible (no geo-block) GDPR + ePrivacy US users; CA pricing; "California" mention CCPA / CPRA ≥45M EU monthly active users DSA VLOP rules ≥45M EU MAU and core platform service DMA gatekeeper rules User-facing AI generation, recommendation, biometric, scoring EU AI Act Marketing emails to anyone CAN-SPAM (US) + GDPR (EU) + CASL (CA) User-uploaded media DMCA (US) + Copyright Directive (EU)
If ambiguous → mark as APPLIES? with the signals you used, ask the user to confirm before running domain-specific checks.
Audit Domains Each domain has its own deep checklist in references/. Load on-demand.
Scope: GDPR , CCPA / CPRA , ePrivacy Directive (cookie law), PIPL , LGPD .
Cookie consent — opt-in (EU), opt-out (US), no pre-checked boxes, banner blocks non-essential trackers until consent
Privacy policy — completeness, clarity, last-updated date, lawful basis stated, retention periods, sub-processors, contact for DPO/privacy
Data subject rights — discoverable mechanism for access, deletion, rectification, portability, objection, opt-out of sale
DPIA triggers — high-risk processing identified
Cross-border transfers — SCCs / adequacy decisions referenced
Breach response — documented procedure, 72-hour notification capability
Children — COPPA / age gate / parental consent if minors possible
Scope: WCAG 2.2 Level AA , ADA Title III (US), European Accessibility Act (EAA, mandatory June 28, 2025), EN 301 549 , Section 508 .
Perceivable: text alternatives, captions, color contrast (4.5:1 normal / 3:1 large), reflow, resize 200%
Operable: keyboard accessible, no keyboard traps, focus visible (2.2 new), target size (2.2 new), no seizure-inducing flashes
Understandable: language declared, predictable navigation, error identification + suggestion, labels/instructions, consistent help (2.2 new)
Robust: parses, name/role/value, status messages
Accessibility statement: published, conformance level, contact, enforcement
Procurement (EAA scope): VPAT or equivalent for B2B
Scope: DSA (Digital Services Act), DMA (Digital Markets Act), CCPA "sale" rules, CAN-SPAM , Consumer Rights Directive (EU) , Omnibus Directive , Unfair Commercial Practices Directive , CPRA dark-patterns rules .
Pricing transparency: total price upfront, no drip pricing, currency clear, taxes/fees disclosed before checkout
Withdrawal / refund: 14-day right (EU), clear policy, withdrawal form provided
Reviews & rankings: discloses if reviews verified, ranking parameters disclosed (Omnibus)
Dark patterns: no forced action, no obstruction, no misdirection, opt-out as easy as opt-in
DSA notice & action: working content-flagging, statement of reasons, transparency reports (if applicable)
DMA: gatekeeper obligations (interop, sideloading, no self-preferencing) — only if designated
Marketing email: unsubscribe in every email, accurate sender, accurate subject (CAN-SPAM); double opt-in (GDPR)
Cookie / consent reuse for marketing: separate from analytics consent
Scope: EU AI Act (phased applicability through 2026/2027), Copyright Directive (EU) , DMCA (US), CDA Section 230 boundaries, state AI disclosure laws (e.g., CA, CO, IL).
AI Act risk classification: unacceptable / high / limited / minimal — system identified and classified
Transparency: users informed when interacting with AI (chatbots, deepfakes, generative content)
Training-data disclosure for general-purpose AI (GPAI) per AI Act
Copyright: TDM opt-out (Copyright Directive Art 4), training-data licensing posture
DMCA: registered designated agent, takedown workflow, counter-notice flow, repeat-infringer policy
User-generated content moderation: terms aligned with platform policy
Watermarking / provenance: synthetic media labeled (AI Act + state laws)
AI-generated decisions affecting users (employment, credit, housing, etc.) — explainability + appeal
Severity Tiers Each finding receives one of four severity levels:
Severity Meaning Examples BLOCKER Live legal exposure NOW. Fix before next deploy. Tracking pixels firing pre-consent in EU; no DPA; no CCPA opt-out link; site unusable by keyboard; no DMCA agent on UGC platform. HIGH Material risk; fix this sprint. Privacy policy missing retention periods; no accessibility statement; dark pattern in checkout; no AI disclosure in chatbot. MEDIUM Best-practice gap; fix this quarter. Color contrast failures on non-critical pages; cookie banner UX could improve; missing alt text on decorative images marked as content. LOW Polish / documentation. Privacy policy could be clearer; missing language attribute on <html>; outdated jurisdiction list.
Plus two non-finding states:
PASS — explicitly verified compliantUNVERIFIED — could not check (e.g., no live URL, gated behind auth) — list what's needed to verify
Execution Flow
Phase 0 — Scope
Confirm target: live URL, source path, or both.
Apply Audit Scope Detection → produce APPLICABILITY MATRIX.
Confirm with user if any domain is ambiguous.
Phase 1 — Gather (parallel where possible) For each applicable domain, collect:
Domain What to gather Privacy Privacy policy text, cookie banner UX (pre/post consent), Set-Cookie headers, third-party network calls before consent, list of data subject rights flows. Accessibility Rendered DOM, ARIA tree, axe-core/Lighthouse output, keyboard tab path, color contrast measurements, accessibility statement page. Consumer Checkout flow screenshots, pricing pages, email signup → confirmation flow, T&Cs, refund policy, review system disclosures. AI / content List of AI-driven features, model providers, training-data sources (if known), DMCA designated-agent page, content moderation policies.
Phase 2 — Evaluate For each check in the applicable domain reference, mark: PASS / BLOCKER / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / UNVERIFIED.
Each non-PASS finding must include evidence (see Evidence Format ).
Phase 3 — Report
Phase 4 — Remediation Plan For BLOCKER + HIGH findings, draft a concrete remediation:
File path / page URL
Suggested change (code, copy, configuration)
Owner (engineering / legal / content)
Estimated effort (XS / S / M / L)
Evidence Format Every non-PASS finding must cite specific evidence so it can be verified:
[domain.check-id] <one-line summary>
severity: BLOCKER
evidence:
- URL: https://example.com/checkout
- request: GET https://google-analytics.com/collect?... (fired pre-consent)
- source: app/layout.tsx:42 — <Script src="..." strategy="beforeInteractive" />
- cookie: _ga=... (Set-Cookie before consent dialog dismissed)
applicable_law: GDPR Art 6 + ePrivacy Art 5(3)
remediation:
- gate <Script> behind consent state
- migrate to consent-aware loader (e.g., conditionally render after user accepts)
effort: S
Never assert a finding without at least one of: URL + observed behavior, source path + line, network capture, header value, screenshot reference.
Output Format # Regulatory Compliance Audit — <site / app name >
**Date:** 2026-MM-DD
**Auditor:** regulatory-guard skill (vllnt/skills)
**Target:** https://example.com (+ source: ./)
**Scope:** EU, US (CA), Global users
## Applicability Matrix
| Law | Applies | Reason |
|-----|---------|--------|
| GDPR | YES | Site available to EU users; collects email |
| CCPA / CPRA | YES | "California" mentioned; US users targeted |
| EAA | YES | B2C e-commerce, available in EU after 2025-06-28 |
| DSA | NO | <45M EU MAU and not a hosting provider for UGC at platform scale |
| EU AI Act | LIMITED | Chatbot present (limited-risk transparency obligations) |
| ... | ... | ... |
## Summary
| Severity | Count |
|----------|-------|
| BLOCKER | 3 |
| HIGH | 7 |
| MEDIUM | 12 |
| LOW | 5 |
| UNVERIFIED | 2 |
| PASS | 41 |
**Verdict:** NOT READY FOR PUBLIC RELEASE — 3 blockers must be resolved.
## Findings — Privacy
... (one entry per non-PASS finding, in Evidence Format)
## Findings — Accessibility
...
## Findings — Consumer & E-commerce
...
## Findings — AI & Content
...
## Remediation Plan (BLOCKER + HIGH)
| ID | Severity | Owner | Effort | Description |
|----|----------|-------|--------|-------------|
| privacy.cookie-pre-consent | BLOCKER | eng | S | Gate GA behind consent... |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
## Out of Scope / Unverified
- "third-party-trackers": could not verify on /admin (auth required) — please re-run with admin session
- ...
## Limitations
This audit is a structured technical review, not legal advice. High-severity findings should be reviewed by qualified counsel for the relevant jurisdictions.
References Each domain's deep checklist:
