privacy-notice-eu

name	privacy-notice-eu
description	Draft GDPR/DSGVO-compliant privacy notices as .docx for any EU/EEA jurisdiction and audience. Use when user asks to create a privacy policy/notice, mentions "Datenschutzerklärung", "politique de confidentialité", "privacy notice", needs Art. 13/14 disclosures, AI Act transparency, cookie policy, or notices for applicants ("Bewerber-Datenschutz"), employees ("Beschäftigten-Datenschutz"), B2B partners, or B2C customers. Covers DE (DSGVO+BDSG+TDDDG), FR (RGPD+LIL+LCEN), AT, IT, ES, NL, BE, IE, UK GDPR. Five notice types: Website/App, Applicant, Employee, Business Partner, B2C Customer.
license	Apache-2.0
lq_ai	{"title":"Pan-EU GDPR Privacy Notice Generator","version":"1.0.0","author":"Oliver Schmidt-Prietz","tags":["gdpr","privacy-notice","datenschutzerklaerung","art-13-14","multi-jurisdiction-eu","docx","ai-act-transparency"],"jurisdiction":"eu","trigger_examples":["Draft a GDPR privacy notice for our German e-commerce site.","Create an applicant privacy notice (Bewerber-Datenschutz) for DE + FR.","We need an employee privacy notice — § 26 BDSG, works council, IT monitoring.","Generate a B2C customer privacy notice with cookies and AI disclosure."],"inputs":{"required":["Notice type (Website/App, Applicant, Employee, Business Partner, B2C, or Combined)","Target jurisdiction(s) and controller identity"],"optional":["Existing template/notice to use as the base","Data inventory, processors, transfers, cookies, AI processing details","Language approach for multi-jurisdiction services"]},"output_format":"report","minimum_inference_tier":2,"self_improvement":false}

Pan-EU GDPR Privacy Notice Generator

Generate jurisdiction-aware, GDPR-compliant privacy notices as professional .docx documents.

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

Operator. This skill is written for a privacy practitioner — an in-house data protection lead or DPO, or the privacy/commercial lawyer supporting them. It can be run by a non-lawyer (a founder or ops owner drafting a first notice), but then the output must be routed to qualified counsel before publication, not published on the skill's say-so. No special AI fluency is assumed beyond answering the intake questions in plain language.

Work shape. The work is bounded and document-centric: a single privacy notice assembled from a fixed template, the loaded jurisdiction reference, and the controller's intake — pattern-matched against the Art. 13/14 disclosure checklist, not open-ended advisory. The skill stays conservative inside that pattern and hands anything outside it back to counsel (see Confidence and what gets handed back below).

Status of the output. The notice itself is a client-facing document; the gap findings and assumptions this skill surfaces alongside it (e.g. "no DPA on file for processor X") are candid drafting observations — not legal advice, and not in themselves a privileged work product. Treat their storage and sharing per your firm's work-product and privilege policy.

Workflow Overview

1. SCOPE    → Notice type, jurisdiction(s), template choice
2. INTAKE   → Type-driven collection: controller info, data inventory, legal bases
3. DRAFT    → Generate notice from template + type profile + collected info
4. VERIFY   → Art. 13/14 compliance check + type-specific checks + AI Act check
5. DELIVER  → .docx output via docx skill

Confidence and what gets handed back

A finished, formatted .docx reads as authoritative — which is the risk: a reviewing lawyer is tempted to ratify it rather than re-examine it. So the skill must make its own certainty visible and must NOT smooth contested points into confident prose. Tag every non-trivial legal position the notice relies on:

• Settled — directly supported by a cited GDPR article, the loaded jurisdiction reference, or an in-force national provision → render it normally.
• Assumed — rests on an intake answer the skill cannot verify (e.g. "marketing runs on consent") or on a default the user did not explicitly confirm → render it, but list it in the delivery summary's Assumptions block so the reviewer can check it.
• Contested / uncertain — the position is genuinely unsettled, falls outside the loaded references, or turns on facts the skill does not have → do NOT pick an authoritative-sounding answer. Leave a visible, highlighted drafting flag in the .docx ([TO CONFIRM WITH COUNSEL: …]) and call it out in the summary. Hand it back; do not bury it in fluent prose.

Confidence travels with the document: the delivery summary (Step 5) carries the Assumptions and Contested/Open-items lists explicitly, not just the chat.

Step 1: Scope, Notice Type & Template Selection

Determine Notice Type (FIRST QUESTION)

Before anything else, determine what type of privacy notice is needed. Load references/NOTICE_TYPES.md and ask:

"What type of privacy notice do you need?"

Type	Description
Website / App	For visitors, users, subscribers of a website, web app, or mobile app
Applicant / Recruiting	For job applicants and candidates (Bewerber, candidats)
Employee	For employees, contractors, interns (Beschäftigte, salariés)
Business Partner (B2B)	For contact persons at vendors, suppliers, clients, partners
B2C Customer	For end consumers in a customer/purchase relationship
Combined	Multiple audiences in one or several linked notices

The selected type determines:

• Which sections to include/skip in the final document
• Which data categories to probe during intake
• Which legal bases are most likely
• Which type-specific intake questions to ask
• Which retention defaults apply

Refer to references/NOTICE_TYPES.md for the full section map, data profile, legal bases, intake questions, and retention defaults for each type.

Determine Jurisdiction

Ask which countries/markets the service targets. Load the appropriate reference:

Target Market	Reference File
Germany / DACH	references/DE.md
France	references/FR.md
Other EU (AT, IT, ES, NL, BE, IE, UK)	references/OTHER_EU.md
Always load	references/EU_COMMON.md

For multi-jurisdiction services, load all relevant files and note where requirements differ (e.g., children's age thresholds, DPO thresholds, retention rules).

Covered jurisdictions = the loaded reference files only. The skill has playbooks for DE, FR, AT, IT, ES, NL, BE, IE, and UK. If the target market is any other country (e.g. PL, SE, DK, or a non-EEA jurisdiction), do NOT silently draft to generic "GDPR defaults" — that hides the national specifics (supervisory authority, employment-data rules, marketing law, age thresholds) the notice actually needs. Instead STOP and tell the user the jurisdiction is outside the loaded playbooks: draft only the EU-baseline sections you can support, mark the national-law layer as an open item, and route it to local counsel. Name the gap; do not paper over it.

Bundled legal data is point-in-time — re-verify, don't trust. The article references, adequacy / EU–US Data Privacy Framework participant lists, retention defaults, and children's-consent age thresholds in the reference files were current when written and drift over time. Treat them as a starting point to confirm against the live source, not as standing authority. Flag any reliance on a possibly-stale value in the delivery summary and tag it Assumed per Confidence and what gets handed back.

Template Selection

Ask the user:

"I will draft the privacy notice as a professional .docx document. Do you have an existing template or privacy notice I should use as a base? If not, I will use one of our pre-built templates."

Option	Action
User provides template	Use their .docx as base — preserve structure, wording, and formatting; only fill/adapt
No user template	Generate from references/templates.md using the docx skill

references/templates.md includes: 13-section structure, Art. 21 objection box (visually highlighted), purposes/retention table, cookie table, AI/automated decision-making section, children's data section, proper header/footer with page numbers, A4 formatting, TOC, and full translations for DE, FR, and EN. Select the language matching the target jurisdiction.

If user provides a template: faithfully preserve its structure and validated wording. Only replace placeholders and adapt to the specific case. Do NOT rewrite validated legal language.

Multi-Language Decision Tree

If the service targets multiple jurisdictions or language groups, determine the language approach:

Scenario	Approach
Single market, single language	One notice in the market's language (e.g., DE only → German)
Single market, international workforce/users	Primary language + English version. State which version governs in case of conflict.
Two markets, two languages	Option A: Two separate notices (one per language), each self-contained. Option B: Bilingual notice with clear visual separation (e.g., side-by-side columns or sequential sections).
Pan-EU / many markets	English as primary + translations for key markets. Each translation should be a standalone notice, not a partial translation.
Swiss company (nDSG + GDPR)	Address both the Swiss nFADP (new Federal Act on Data Protection) and GDPR. Typical approach: single notice referencing both regimes, in at least German + French (+ Italian if applicable). Note: nFADP has no consent requirement for general processing but requires information duties similar to Art. 13/14 GDPR.

Template handling for bilingual documents:

• Use the primary-language template as the structural base
• Ensure both language versions contain all mandatory disclosures (a translation gap = a compliance gap)
• Mark the governing language version explicitly (e.g., "In case of discrepancies, the [German/French] version shall prevail.")

Multi-language verification checklist (add to Step 4 if applicable):

• All mandatory Art. 13/14 disclosures present in each language version
• Governing version clearly identified
• Legal terminology correctly translated (not machine-translated without review)
• Supervisory authority information correct for each jurisdiction
• Jurisdiction-specific requirements addressed in the relevant language version

Platform Sub-Type (Website/App type only)

If the notice type is Website / App, further classify the platform to anticipate data categories. See references/NOTICE_TYPES.md → "Website / App" → "Sub-Types & Data Profiles" for details.

Sub-Type	Typical Additional Data
Brochure/corporate site	Contact forms, analytics, cookies only
E-commerce	Account, payment, order history, shipping, returns
SaaS / Web app	Account, usage data, feature logs, API keys, collaboration data
Mobile app	Device ID, push tokens, permissions (camera, location, contacts), app usage
Marketplace	Dual roles (buyers/sellers), ratings, messaging, payment escrow
Platform with AI features	Training data, AI inputs/outputs, model decisions, profiling

Step 2: Information Intake

Collect ALL information before drafting. Use the type profile from references/NOTICE_TYPES.md to guide the intake — each type pre-defines likely data categories, legal bases, and type-specific questions.

Ask in logical groups, not all at once. Start with Group A (always), then use the type profile to determine which categories to probe and which type-specific questions to ask.

Group A — Controller Identity

• Company name, legal form, registration number
• Registered address
• Legal representative (name + title)
• Contact email + phone
• DPO appointed? → Contact details (use functional email)

Group B — Data Inventory

For each collection point (forms, account creation, purchase, cookies, app usage):

• What data is collected?
• Is it mandatory or optional?
• What is the source (direct from user, third party, automated)?

Categories to probe:

• Identity: name, email, phone, address, date of birth, photo
• Account: credentials, preferences, settings, activity history
• Technical: IP, device ID, browser fingerprint, logs
• Browsing: pages visited, clicks, session duration, referrer
• Transaction: orders, payment method (via provider), invoices
• Communication: messages, support tickets, comments
• Special categories (Art. 9): health, biometric, political, religious, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, trade union, genetic — If any Art. 9 data is identified: consult EU_COMMON.md → "Special Category Data (Art. 9)" for the full intake protocol. Determine the Art. 9(2) exception for each category, confirm the dual legal basis (Art. 6 + Art. 9(2)), and document additional safeguards. Common triggers by notice type: Employee (church tax, disability, sick leave, union dues), Applicant (disability, health, religion), B2C (health data for pharmacy/insurance/fitness).
• AI-related: inputs to AI systems, AI-generated outputs, automated scores/decisions

Group C — Purposes & Legal Bases

For each processing activity, determine the legal basis. Reference EU_COMMON.md for guidance.

Present as a table for the user to confirm:

Purpose	Legal Basis	Data Categories
Service provision / contract execution	Art. 6(1)(b)	[to fill]
Account management	Art. 6(1)(b)	[to fill]
Legal/tax compliance	Art. 6(1)(c) — [specific law]	[to fill]
Analytics	Art. 6(1)(f) or consent	[to fill]
Marketing / newsletter	Art. 6(1)(a) consent	[to fill]
AI-based processing	[determine per use case]	[to fill]

Group D — Recipients & Transfers

• Hosting provider + location
• Payment processor
• Analytics tools
• Email/marketing tools
• CRM / support tools
• AI/ML service providers (e.g., OpenAI, Google AI, Anthropic)
• Any other processors
• Transfers outside EU/EEA → which countries, which mechanism (adequacy, SCCs, DPF, BCRs)

DPA / Art. 28 Cross-Reference — For each processor identified:

• Verify a Data Processing Agreement (Art. 28 GDPR) is in place. If not, flag as a compliance gap requiring remediation before the notice is finalized.
• What to disclose in the notice: processor name (or category), purpose, location, transfer mechanism. Do NOT include DPA terms, sub-processor lists, or TOMs in the privacy notice — these belong in the Art. 28 agreement.
• What NOT to disclose: specific technical/organizational measures (Art. 32), sub-processor chains, pricing, SLA details.
• If the user confirms no DPA exists for a processor: note this in the summary and recommend immediate remediation. The privacy notice should still name the processor/category but add a note that the controller is in the process of formalizing the agreement.
• Joint controllership (Art. 26): if applicable, the arrangement's essence must be disclosed in the notice, including respective responsibilities and the contact point for data subjects.

Group E — Cookies & Tracking

• Cookie categories used (essential, analytics, marketing, social)
• Specific tools (Google Analytics, Meta Pixel, Matomo, HubSpot, etc.)
• CMP solution (Usercentrics, Cookiebot, Axeptio, Didomi, Borlabs, etc.)
• Server-side tracking? Fingerprinting?
• Cookie lifespans

Group F — AI & Automated Processing

If the service uses AI/ML:

• What AI systems are used and for what purpose?
• Are decisions solely automated or human-in-the-loop?
• Do decisions produce legal or similarly significant effects (Art. 22)?
• Is user data used for model training?
• AI Act classification: prohibited / high-risk / limited-risk / minimal-risk?

Group G — DPIA Indicators (Art. 35 GDPR)

Check whether a Data Protection Impact Assessment may be required. If 2 or more of the following indicators apply, inform the user and recommend a DPIA as a separate deliverable:

1. Systematic evaluation/scoring of individuals (profiling, credit scoring, performance reviews)
2. Automated decision-making with legal or similarly significant effects (Art. 22)
3. Systematic monitoring of a publicly accessible area (CCTV, Wi-Fi tracking)
4. Special category data or criminal offence data processed at scale (Art. 9/10)
5. Large-scale processing of personal data (high volume, broad geographic scope, many data subjects)
6. Matching or combining datasets from different sources in ways data subjects would not reasonably expect
7. Vulnerable data subjects (employees, children, patients, elderly)
8. Innovative use of technology (biometrics, AI/ML, IoT, blockchain for personal data)

If 2+ indicators are flagged:

• Inform the user: "Based on the processing activities described, a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) under Art. 35 GDPR appears to be required."
• Explain the notice implications: the privacy notice should reference that a DPIA has been conducted (without disclosing the DPIA content itself)
• Recommend: "A DPIA is a separate compliance exercise and should be conducted before the processing begins. This privacy notice skill can draft the notice, but the DPIA should be prepared as a standalone document."
• Check national mandatory DPIA lists (DE: DSK-Liste; FR: CNIL list of processing operations requiring DPIA)

Summary Before Drafting

After collection, produce a structured summary for user confirmation:

NOTICE TYPE: [Website / Applicant / Employee / B2B / B2C / Combined]
CONTROLLER: [Name, form, address]
JURISDICTION(S): [Countries]
PLATFORM: [Type / Sub-type if website]
DPO: [Yes/No + contact]
DATA CATEGORIES: [List by collection point]
PURPOSES + BASES: [Table]
PROCESSORS: [List with locations]
TRANSFERS: [Countries + mechanisms]
COOKIES: [Categories + tools + CMP — if applicable per type]
AI PROCESSING: [Yes/No + details]
RETENTION: [Key periods — cross-check with type defaults]
SPECIFICS: [Anything unusual]
SECTIONS TO INCLUDE: [Based on type section map]
SECTIONS TO SKIP: [Based on type section map]

Confirm with user before proceeding to draft.

Step 3: Draft the Notice

Section Selection by Type

Use the section map from references/NOTICE_TYPES.md for the selected notice type. Only include sections marked ✅ or ⚠️ (if applicable). Skip sections marked ❌. This avoids irrelevant content (e.g., cookie tables in an applicant notice).

For combined notices covering multiple audiences, see references/NOTICE_TYPES.md → "Combined Notices" for structural options (single comprehensive, separate, or layered).

Standard Structure (full — adapt per type)

PRIVACY NOTICE / DATENSCHUTZERKLÄRUNG / POLITIQUE DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ
[Company Name]
Last updated: [DATE]

1. WHO WE ARE (Controller identity + DPO)
2. WHAT DATA WE COLLECT (by category, with source + mandatory/optional)
3. WHY WE PROCESS YOUR DATA (purposes + legal bases table, incl. retention per purpose)
4. WHO RECEIVES YOUR DATA (recipients + processors)
5. INTERNATIONAL TRANSFERS (countries + safeguards)
6. HOW LONG WE KEEP YOUR DATA (retention table — can be merged with section 3)
7. YOUR RIGHTS (all applicable rights + exercise procedure)
8. COOKIES & TRACKING (categories + management + CMP reference)
9. AI & AUTOMATED DECISIONS (if applicable — Art. 22 + AI Act)
10. DATA SECURITY (general measures, no sensitive technical details)
11. CHILDREN'S DATA (if applicable — age threshold + mechanism)
12. CHANGES TO THIS NOTICE (notification method)
13. CONTACT (email + postal + form link)

Drafting Rules

• Language: Write in the jurisdiction's language. For multi-jurisdiction, primary language first with clear indication of governing version.
• Tone: Address the reader as "you"/"Sie"/"vous". Clear, accessible language — understandable by non-lawyers.
• Art. 21 Right to Object: Must be presented prominently and separately from other rights (GDPR Art. 21(4)). In German notices, a separate "WIDERSPRUCHSRECHT" section is standard practice.
• Legal bases: Cite article numbers precisely (e.g., "Art. 6(1)(f) DSGVO" not just "legitimate interest").
• Retention periods: Use specific durations with legal justification, not vague language.
• AI disclosure: If AI is used, include a dedicated section even if Art. 22 doesn't strictly apply — the AI Act requires transparency.
• Tables: Use tables for purposes/bases/retention and for cookie categories. They improve readability.
• No internal references: The final document must not contain references to this skill, CNIL guides, or other drafting aids.
• Confidence marking: Tag each legal position per Confidence and what gets handed back. Never render a contested or unverified position as settled prose — leave a highlighted [TO CONFIRM WITH COUNSEL: …] flag instead, and record it in the delivery summary.

Step 4: Compliance Verification

Before delivery, perform a structured final check in this order:

1. Re-read the jurisdiction reference(s) loaded in Step 1 (DE.md, FR.md, OTHER_EU.md). Cross-check:

• Supervisory authority name, address, and URL are correct for the controller's registered seat
• Retention periods match jurisdiction-specific legal citations (not just generic defaults)
• Standard wording blocks (Art. 21 objection, complaint right, controller intro) use the jurisdiction's validated language from the reference file
• Any jurisdiction-specific requirements not yet addressed (e.g., § 26 BDSG for DE employee/applicant, Art. L.34-5 CPCE for FR marketing)

2. Verify Art. 13/14 mandatory disclosures against EU_COMMON.md → "Mandatory Disclosures Checklist". Every item must be present or explicitly not applicable with reason.

3. Additional checks:

• Art. 21 right to object presented separately and prominently
• Correct supervisory authority named (check jurisdiction reference)
• DPO contact included if DPO appointed
• Cookie section matches actual cookie usage (if included per type)
• Retention periods are specific (not "as long as necessary" without criteria)
• Transfer mechanisms match actual processor locations
• AI/automated decision-making addressed if applicable
• Children's data addressed if service accessible to minors
• Special category data (Art. 9): dual legal basis disclosed (Art. 6 + Art. 9(2)), specific exception identified, additional safeguards mentioned
• Language matches target jurisdiction
• No placeholder text remaining ([...], ___, TODO)
• Update date present
• Sections match the type's section map (no irrelevant sections, no missing required sections)

4. Type-specific checks (from references/NOTICE_TYPES.md):

Applicant: § 26 BDSG referenced (DE)? Talent pool consent separate? Retention ≤ 6 months post-rejection unless consent? Art. 14 used if data from recruiters?

Employee: § 26 BDSG as primary basis (DE)? Works council mentioned if relevant? IT monitoring disclosed? Complex retention chain complete?

B2B: Art. 14 disclosure if data not from data subject directly? Source of data disclosed? Contact person vs. contracting entity distinction clear?

B2C Customer: Soft opt-in conditions met (DE: § 7(3) UWG)? Payment processor disclosed? Loyalty program terms clear? Profiling disclosed if applicable?

5. AI Act compliance (if AI features present):

• Users informed they interact with AI (Art. 50 AI Act)
• AI-generated content disclosed where applicable
• High-risk AI: transparency obligations met
• Link between Art. 22 GDPR rights and AI system disclosed

Step 5: Deliver as .docx

Generate the final document using the docx generation skill (/mnt/skills/public/docx/SKILL.md in Claude.ai Projects, or the docx-processing-anthropic skill in Claude Code). If no docx skill is available, generate well-formatted Markdown as fallback.

Document Formatting Standards

• Page size: A4 (standard for EU documents)
• Font: Arial or Calibri, 11pt body, headings proportionally larger
• Margins: 2.5 cm all sides (EU standard) = 1417 DXA
• Structure: Numbered headings (1., 2., 3...), table of contents for documents > 3 pages
• Tables: Light borders, header row shaded, readable cell padding
• Header: Company name or "Privacy Notice"
• Footer: Page numbers, "Last updated: [DATE]"

Read the docx skill instructions before generating the file. Use docx-js for new documents. Follow all critical rules from the docx skill (DXA widths, LevelFormat.BULLET for lists, ShadingType.CLEAR for tables, etc.).

Delivery

Present the .docx file with:

1. Brief confirmation of what was included
2. Assumptions — positions rendered in the notice that rest on unverified intake answers or unconfirmed defaults, so the reviewer can check them
3. Contested / open items — positions left as highlighted [TO CONFIRM WITH COUNSEL] flags because they are genuinely unsettled or fall outside the loaded jurisdiction references; these are handed back, not resolved
4. Recommendation for legal review before publication

IMPORTANT: Always recommend that the user has the notice reviewed by qualified legal counsel before publication. This tool assists in drafting — it does not replace legal advice.

Post-Generation Checklist & Approval Workflow

Present the following checklist to the user to guide their internal review and publication process:

Legal Review:

• Privacy notice reviewed by qualified data protection counsel / DPO
• All legal bases confirmed as appropriate for the specific processing activities
• Retention periods verified against current legal requirements
• Transfer mechanisms confirmed as valid and up-to-date (especially DPF certifications, SCC versions)
• Art. 9 special category processing: dual legal basis and safeguards reviewed

Technical Review:

• All processors and tools listed are actually in use (no outdated entries)
• Cookie table matches actual cookies set by the website (audit with browser dev tools)
• Data flows match the technical architecture (verify with IT/engineering)
• Contact details (email, postal, DPO) are correct and monitored

Translation QA (if multi-language):

• Each language version reviewed by a native speaker with legal expertise
• Legal terminology verified (not raw machine translation)
• All versions contain identical substantive content
• Governing version clearly marked

Publication Requirements:

• Notice accessible within 2 clicks from any page (DE: BGH requirement)
• Linked in website footer / app settings / onboarding flow as appropriate
• Previous version archived with effective date (for audit trail)
• Cookie banner / CMP updated to reference the current privacy notice
• Employees / applicants notified of updated notice (if applicable)

Ongoing Review Triggers — Recommend the user reviews the notice when:

• New processors or tools are introduced
• New processing purposes are added
• Legal framework changes (new adequacy decisions, court rulings, regulatory guidance)
• Company undergoes a merger, acquisition, or restructuring
• A data breach occurs that reveals undisclosed processing
• At minimum: annual review

Cross-References

• Breach response: If the user also needs breach notification procedures, hand off to a dedicated breach-notification resource — this skill stops at the privacy notice
• DPIA: If processing is likely high-risk, recommend a Data Protection Impact Assessment (Art. 35 GDPR) as a separate exercise
• Cookie policy: Can be integrated in the privacy notice or a separate document — ask the user's preference

Writing Style Guide

Do	Avoid
"you" / "your data" / "Sie" / "Ihre Daten"	"the user" / "the data subject" / "der Betroffene"
Short, clear sentences	Dense legal paragraphs
Specific examples for complex processing	Vague language ("various data", "diverse Daten")
Tables for structured information	Walls of text for purposes/retention
Precise article references	Generic "in accordance with applicable law"
Active voice	Passive constructions where avoidable
Plain language with legal precision	Either pure legalese or oversimplified language

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 replace counsel. It assists in drafting a privacy notice; the output must be reviewed by qualified data-protection counsel or a DPO before publication. It does not create an attorney–client relationship.
• It does not invent legal substance or citations. Article references, supervisory-authority details, and retention citations come from the jurisdiction reference files. Where a contested point is not supported by the references, the skill flags it rather than fabricating a citation.
• It does not produce other compliance artefacts. It does not draft the Art. 28 DPA, the DPIA, or the breach-notification procedure — it flags when those are needed and hands off. The privacy notice deliberately excludes DPA terms, sub-processor chains, and Art. 32 technical measures.
• It does not certify compliance. Passing the internal Art. 13/14 checklist means the notice covers the mandatory disclosures for the inputs given; it is not a guarantee of compliance for the controller's actual processing, which only the controller (and counsel) can confirm.
• Translations are drafting support, not certified legal translation. Multi-language versions are authored in each language's legal register and flagged for native-speaker legal review; they are not sworn translations.
• It does not audit the live site. Cookie tables and data flows reflect what the user reports; the skill recommends verifying them against the actual site (dev tools) and architecture (IT/engineering) before publication.

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.