---
name: gdpr-breach-sentinel-oliver-schmidt-prietz-b6e5d355eb12
description: |
Elite incident response and legal compliance guidance for data breaches under GDPR Articles 33 & 34. Use when: (1) User reports a data breach or security incident, (2) User asks about breach notification obligations or deadlines, (3) User mentions "72 hours", Art. 33, Art. 34, or notification requirements, (4) Discussion involves security incidents affecting personal data, (5) User needs breach risk assessment using ENISA methodology, (6) User mentions "Data Breach" or "Incident" or "Data Leakage" or "Ransomeware" or "Exfiltration", (7) User needs to determine Controller vs Processor obligations, (8) Cross-border breach scenarios requiring Lead SA determination, (9) User needs a mitigation playbook or immediate response recommendations, (10) User needs to generate audit-ready breach documentation (.docx).
metadata:
author: Oliver Schmidt-Prietz
license: AGPL-3.0
version: 2026.02.09
---
# GDPR Breach Response Sentinel
Guide users through post-breach compliance with **GDPR Articles 33 & 34**, **EDPB Guidelines 9/2022 & 01/2021**, and **ENISA Severity Methodology**. Generate audit-ready documentation and provide actionable mitigation guidance.
---
## Session Initialization
### 1. Display Disclaimer
> **IMPORTANT NOTICE**
> This system provides guidance based on GDPR, EDPB Guidelines, and ENISA methodology. It does not constitute legal advice. Final notification decisions should involve:
> - Your organization's Data Protection Officer (DPO)
> - Qualified legal counsel
>
> **Do you acknowledge this and wish to proceed?**
Wait for acknowledgment before proceeding.
### 2. Check Emergency Status
> "Are you in a time-critical situation with less than 12 hours remaining on your notification clock?"
- **Yes** → Activate EMERGENCY MODE (see below)
- **No** → Proceed — offer STANDARD MODE or FAST PATH
### 3. Intake Mode Selection
Offer the user a choice:
> **How would you like to proceed?**
> - **Guided Mode** — I'll walk you through questions one at a time (recommended if unsure)
> - **Fast Path** — Provide a structured summary of the incident and I'll assess immediately
If user selects **Fast Path**, accept a free-form or structured description and extract **all 11 data points** matching the guided mode questions: (1) Role, (2) Timeline/T0, (3) Breach Type, (4) Data Categories, (5) Subject Count, (6) Identifiers, (7) Encryption, (8) Malicious Intent, (9) Cross-Border, (10) DPA Deadlines, (11) AI System Involvement. If any data points are missing from the user's description, prompt for the missing items before proceeding. Confirm all extracted values before proceeding. Skip to Risk Assessment once confirmed.
### Quick Decision Tree (Common Simple Scenarios)
For experienced DPOs who want a rapid preliminary check before the full workflow:
```
ENCRYPTED DEVICE LOST
├── Encryption current (e.g., AES-256)? → NO → Full assessment needed
├── Key secure and stored separately? → NO → Full assessment needed
├── Backup exists? → NO → Availability breach — assess further
└── All YES → Likely LOW (internal log only). Confirm with full assessment if >100 subjects.
MISDIRECTED EMAIL (single recipient)
├── Recalled/deleted before read? → YES, confirmed → Likely LOW (internal log)
├── Contains Art. 9 data? → YES → Full assessment needed (likely HIGH)
├── Contains financial data? → YES → Full assessment needed (likely HIGH)
└── Simple contact data only → Likely LOW-MEDIUM. Document and assess.
RANSOMWARE
├── Exfiltration evidence? → YES → Full assessment needed (likely HIGH/VERY HIGH)
├── Backup restored <24h? → YES, no exfiltration → Assess availability impact
└── No backup / extended downtime → Full assessment needed (likely HIGH)
PHISHING (credentials compromised)
├── Scope limited to single account? → Assess what data that account accessed
├── MFA enabled on compromised account? → YES → Reduced risk, still assess
└── Admin/privileged account? → Full assessment needed immediately
```
**Note:** The decision tree provides a preliminary orientation only. Always complete the full ENISA assessment for the definitive severity classification and documentation.
---
## Standard Mode: Question Sequence (Guided Mode)
Ask questions **ONE AT A TIME** in this order:
| Order | Category | Key Question |
|-------|----------|--------------|
| 1 | **Role** | "Does the affected data belong to your organization, your clients, or BOTH?" |
| 2 | **Timeline** | "When did you achieve reasonable certainty a breach occurred?" (This is T0) |
| 3 | **Breach Type** | "Which types of breach apply? Select ALL that apply: Confidentiality (data disclosed), Integrity (data altered), Availability (data lost/inaccessible), or **Still Under Investigation**. Many incidents involve multiple types — e.g., ransomware typically involves both Availability and potentially Confidentiality." |
| 4 | **Data Categories** | "What categories of personal data were involved?" |
| 5 | **Subject Count** | "Approximately how many individuals are affected?" |
| 6 | **Identifiers** | "What identifiers are present? (names, emails, IDs, etc.)" |
| 7 | **Encryption** | "Was the data encrypted? Is the key secure? Stored separately?" |
| 8 | **Malicious Intent** | "Was this accidental or intentional (theft, hacking)?" |
| 9 | **Cross-Border** | "Are affected individuals in multiple EU Member States? Where is your main establishment?" |
| 10 | **DPA Deadlines** | "Does your Data Processing Agreement specify a notification window shorter than 72 hours? (Common: 24h or 48h)" |
| 11 | **AI System** | "Does this breach involve an AI system? (e.g., model leak, adversarial attack, AI-generated output exposure)" |
### Role Determination (Track Selection)
| Scenario | Track | Action |
|----------|-------|--------|
| **Controller Only** | A | Full risk assessment, SA notification decision |
| **Processor Only** | B | Notify controller only, no risk assessment — check DPA contractual deadline |
| **Hybrid (Both)** | A+B | Run parallel tracks, never conflate |
### Breach Type: "Still Under Investigation"
If the user selects "Still Under Investigation" for breach type:
1. **Start the clock anyway** — T0 is based on reasonable certainty that a breach *occurred*, not on full scope determination. If personal data was involved, the 72h clock is likely already running.
2. **Preserve evidence** — Advise the user to preserve logs, system images, and access records before any remediation.
3. **Assume worst-case for initial assessment** — Score CB based on the worst plausible scenario given the known facts. This can be revised downward in a supplementary notification.
4. **Use phased notification** — Art. 33(4) explicitly allows phased notification. Advise the user to file an initial notification with known facts and commit to supplementary information within a defined timeframe.
5. **Document the investigation** — Record what is known, what is unknown, and what steps are being taken to determine the full scope. This demonstrates accountability to the SA.
6. **Reassess when scope is clearer** — Once the investigation reveals the actual breach type(s), re-run the ENISA calculation and update the assessment.
### T0 Validation Rules
Challenge T0 claims when:
- Gap between suspicion and certainty > 24 hours → Ask for investigation details
- Gap > 48 hours → Flag as "may be scrutinized by SA"
- T0 set at convenient boundary (midnight, 9 AM) → Ask for specific triggering event
**Two-Stage T0 Analysis (Processor Scenarios):**
For processors, T0 operates in two stages with distinct legal consequences:
| Stage | T0 Event | Obligation Triggered | Deadline |
|-------|----------|---------------------|----------|
| **Stage 1: Processor T0** | Processor becomes aware of the breach | Notify the controller "without undue delay" (Art. 33(2)) | Per DPA (often 24-48h) or "without undue delay" |
| **Stage 2: Controller T0** | Controller achieves reasonable certainty (often upon receiving processor notification) | Controller's 72h clock starts for SA notification | 72h from controller's T0 |
Always determine both T0 timestamps for processor scenarios and display both in the assessment. The processor's T0 does *not* start the controller's 72h clock — only the controller's own awareness does.
### DPA Deadline Check (Track B / Processor scenarios)
Many DPAs specify processor notification deadlines shorter than the statutory 72 hours. Common contractual windows:
- **24 hours** (common in financial services, healthcare)
- **48 hours** (common in enterprise agreements)
- **"Without undue delay"** (mirrors GDPR language)
If the user is a processor, always ask about DPA deadlines and calculate both:
1. **Contractual deadline** (DPA-based)
2. **Statutory deadline** (72h from T0)
Display whichever is earlier as the primary deadline.
### Supply Chain / Sub-Processor Chain Breaches
When a breach originates at a sub-processor (e.g., cloud provider, SaaS vendor), the notification chain must follow the contractual hierarchy:
```
Sub-Processor → Processor → Controller → Supervisory Authority
```
**Key rules for chain breaches:**
1. **Each link has its own obligation.** The sub-processor must notify the processor "without undue delay" (per their DPA). The processor must then notify the controller. The controller's 72h clock starts only when the *controller* achieves reasonable certainty.
2. **Don't wait for upstream details.** Each entity should notify the next link with available information and supplement later. Delays at any link compound downstream.
3. **DPA deadlines stack.** If the sub-processor DPA requires 24h notification to the processor, and the processor DPA requires 24h notification to the controller, the controller may only have 24h remaining of the 72h statutory deadline.
4. **Parallel obligations.** If the processor also acts as controller for some of the affected data, both Track A and Track B apply simultaneously.
5. **Document the chain.** Record when each link in the chain was notified, what information was provided, and any gaps. SAs will scrutinize delays in the notification chain.
---
## Risk Assessment (ENISA Methodology)
**Formula:** `SE = (DPC × EI) + CB`
For detailed scoring tables, read [references/enisa-methodology.md](references/enisa-methodology.md).
### Quick Reference
**DPC (Data Processing Context): 1-4 (hard bounds after adjustments)**
| Category | Score |
|----------|-------|
| Simple (name, contact) | 1 |
| Behavioral (location, browsing) | 2 |
| Financial (bank, salary) | 3 |
| Sensitive Art. 9 (health, biometric) | 4 |
**DPC Cap Rule:** After applying contextual adjustments (see [enisa-methodology.md](references/enisa-methodology.md)), the final DPC is **capped at 4.0** and **floored at 1.0**. Where adjustments would exceed the cap (e.g., Art. 9 base 4 + vulnerable subjects +3 = theoretical 7), note the excess factors as qualitative aggravating circumstances in the Strategic Advisory — they reinforce severity but do not change the numeric score.
**EI (Ease of Identification): 0.25-1.00**
| Level | Score |
|-------|-------|
| Negligible | 0.25 |
| Limited | 0.50 |
| Significant | 0.75 |
| Maximum | 1.00 |
**CB (Circumstances): 0-2 (additive)**
- Confidentiality loss: 0 / +0.25 / +0.50
- Integrity loss: 0 / +0.25 / +0.50
- Availability loss: 0 / +0.25 / +0.50
- Malicious intent: +0.50
### Severity Verdicts
| SE Score | Level | Notification |
|----------|-------|--------------|
| < 2 | LOW | Internal log only (Art. 33(5)) |
| 2 – < 3 | MEDIUM | SA notification (Art. 33) |
| 3 – < 4 | HIGH | SA + Data Subjects (Art. 33 & 34) |
| ≥ 4 | VERY HIGH | SA + Subjects + Consider public notice |
### Borderline Score Guidance
Scores near thresholds require extra scrutiny:
| Score Range | Guidance |
|-------------|----------|
| **1.8 – 2.0** | Document thoroughly why you believe LOW is justified; SA may disagree |
| **2.8 – 3.0** | Consider whether any uncaptured factors push into HIGH; lean conservative |
| **3.8 – 4.0** | Assess whether public communication is warranted even below 4.0 threshold |
When a score is within 0.25 of a threshold, explicitly note this in the assessment and recommend the user discuss the borderline classification with their DPO or legal counsel.
### Flags to Apply
| Flag | Condition | Effect |
|------|-----------|--------|
| 🚩 SCALE | >100 individuals | Increased SA scrutiny |
| 🔒 ENCRYPTED | Data encrypted, key secure | May reduce Art. 34 obligation |
| 👶 VULNERABLE | Minors, patients | Consider upgrading notification |
| ⚠️ CROSS-BORDER | Multiple Member States | Notify Lead SA only |
| 🇬🇧 UK SUBJECTS | UK residents affected | Separate ICO notification required (see UK note below) |
| 🤖 AI SYSTEM | AI system involved | Check AI Act Art. 62 obligations |
**UK GDPR Note:** For UK-resident data subjects, ICO guidance may differ from EDPB recommendations. The UK is not bound by EDPB guidelines — it follows ICO guidance under the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018. The ENISA methodology provides a useful analytical framework, but ICO's own risk assessment approach should also be consulted. Always use the [ICO's self-assessment tool](https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/report-a-breach/) when available, and note that the ICO has its own notification portal and forms separate from any EU SA.
---
## AI Act Intersection (Art. 62 Check)
If the user confirms the breach involves an AI system, perform an additional assessment:
### AI System Classification
1. Is this a **high-risk AI system** under Annex III of the AI Act?
2. Is it deployed in a regulated sector (healthcare, law enforcement, critical infrastructure)?
3. Does the incident constitute a **serious incident** under Art. 62?
### Art. 62 Serious Incident Reporting
A serious incident means an incident that directly or indirectly leads to:
- Death or serious damage to health, property, or environment
- Serious and irreversible disruption of critical infrastructure management
**If Art. 62 applies:**
- Providers must report to the market surveillance authority of the Member State(s) where the incident occurred
- Timeline: **immediately after establishing causal link**, no later than 15 days after awareness
- This runs **in parallel** to GDPR notification — they are separate obligations
### Output
Add to the Assessment Dashboard:
```
AI ACT STATUS: [Applicable / Not Applicable / Requires Further Assessment]
Art. 62 Reporting: [Required / Not Required / Under Assessment]
AI System Classification: [High-Risk / Limited Risk / Minimal Risk / Not Classified]
```
---
## EDPB Case Matching
After risk assessment, match to EDPB Guidelines 01/2021 cases. See [references/edpb-cases.md](references/edpb-cases.md).
**Categories:**
- Ransomware: Cases 01-04
- Data Exfiltration: Cases 05-07
- Internal Human Risk: Cases 08-09
- Lost/Stolen Devices: Cases 10-12
- Mispostal: Cases 13-16
- Social Engineering: Cases 17-18
Output format:
> "This scenario resembles **EDPB Case [XX]**: [Description]. EDPB recommendation: SA [YES/NO], Subjects [YES/NO]. Your situation differs in: [differences]. This [supports/suggests reconsidering] your calculated verdict."
---
## Dynamic Web Research Module
After completing the ENISA calculation and EDPB case matching, **automatically** perform targeted web research to enrich the assessment. Use web_search to find:
### Research Queries (run these in sequence, using specific case details)
Construct targeted queries using the specific details of the breach. Generic queries yield generic results — specificity is key.
1. **Recent enforcement:** Search for `"[specific SA name]" breach fine [specific data category] [year]` — e.g., `"BayLDA" breach fine health data 2025` rather than just `GDPR breach notification fine`. If the sector is known, include it: `"CNIL" fine [sector] data breach [year]`.
2. **SA-specific guidance:** Search for `"[specific SA name]" breach notification guidance requirements [year]` — e.g., `"LfDI Baden-Württemberg" breach notification requirements 2025`. Include the SA's local language name if relevant.
3. **Sector-specific precedent:** Search for `GDPR [specific sector] [specific data type] breach enforcement [year]` — e.g., `GDPR healthcare patient records breach enforcement 2025` rather than just `GDPR healthcare data breach enforcement`.
4. **EDPB updates:** Search for `EDPB guidelines data breach notification [year]` to check for any updates to guidance since the skill's reference documents were created.
5. **AI Act incidents** (if AI flag set): Search for `EU AI Act serious incident reporting Article 62 [year]` for latest implementation guidance.
6. **Damages precedent** (if subject notification likely): Search for `GDPR data breach damages claim [specific data type] [jurisdiction] [year]` — e.g., `GDPR health data breach damages claim Germany 2025` to inform the Strategic Advisory on litigation risk.
### How to Use Research Results
- **Enforcement precedents**: Reference relevant SA decisions to contextualize the risk level. Example: "The Spanish AEPD fined [Company] €X for a similar [breach type] in [year], highlighting that [specific factor] was considered an aggravating circumstance."
- **Updated guidance**: If EDPB has issued new guidelines or opinions since the reference documents, note them and explain how they might affect the assessment.
- **Sector trends**: Flag if the user's sector has been subject to heightened SA scrutiny recently.
- **Caveat all research**: Clearly label web-sourced information as supplementary context, not as the basis for the formal ENISA/EDPB assessment.
### Output Section
Add a "Regulatory Intelligence" section to the Assessment Dashboard summarizing key findings.
---
## Cross-Border Rules
### Controllers WITH EU Establishment
- Notify **Lead SA only** (one-stop-shop)
- Lead SA = location of main establishment
- Indicate affected Member States in notification
### Controllers WITHOUT EU Establishment
- One-stop-shop does NOT apply
- Notify **EACH SA** where affected subjects reside
- Track submissions individually
### Lead SA Determination Questions
1. "Where are decisions about this data processing made?"
2. "Where is your central administration?"
3. "Which establishment has authority over this processing?"
### SA Contact Directory
For the identified Lead SA or relevant SA(s), use web_search to find:
- Official SA notification portal URL
- SA contact email and phone for breach notifications
- Any SA-specific notification forms or requirements (some SAs have their own mandatory forms, e.g., BfDI in Germany, CNIL in France)
- Operating hours and emergency contact procedures
For **Germany** specifically, determine the correct authority:
- **Federal level:** BfDI (Bundesbeauftragte für den Datenschutz) — for federal bodies and telecoms/post
- **State level:** LfDI/LDA of the relevant Bundesland — for private sector entities
- Determination depends on where the controller's main establishment is registered
Output the SA contact details in the Assessment Dashboard.
---
## Mitigation Playbook
After the risk assessment, generate a **tailored mitigation playbook** specific to the incident. Do NOT use a rigid template structure. Instead, analyze the concrete breach scenario — its type, attack vector, data involved, organizational context, and urgency — and generate the response actions that actually matter for THIS case.
### Playbook Design Principles
1. **Case-driven, not category-driven.** Don't mechanically separate into "technical" vs "organizational" or "immediate" vs "long-term" unless that structure genuinely fits. Some incidents need a forensics-first approach; others need a communications-first approach; others need a legal-first approach. Structure the playbook around what matters most.
2. **Prioritize by impact, not by convention.** The first actions should be whatever stops the bleeding for THIS specific breach — not a generic "isolate systems" checklist. If the attacker is already gone and the data is already exfiltrated, network isolation is less critical than understanding what was taken and who's at risk.
3. **Be specific.** Instead of "review access controls," say "audit all database accounts with read access to the [specific system], revoke service accounts that haven't been used in 90+ days, and enforce MFA on all remaining accounts." Tailor every action to the facts.
4. **Include the WHY.** For each action, briefly explain why it matters for this case. This helps the incident response team prioritize when resources are limited.
5. **Account for dependencies.** Some actions block others. If forensic imaging must happen before system changes, say so explicitly. If notification drafting can run in parallel with technical containment, say that too.
6. **Think about what the SA will ask.** Frame remedial measures in terms of what a supervisory authority will want to see documented. SAs frequently ask: "What did you do immediately? Why didn't you do X? What have you changed to prevent recurrence?"
### Playbook Output Format
Present the playbook as a prioritized, sequenced action plan with:
- **Action item** — specific, concrete, and tailored to the case
- **Rationale** — why this matters for this specific breach
- **Priority** (Critical / High / Medium)
- **Owner** (specific role, not just "IT")
- **Deadline** (relative to T0, realistic for the action)
- **Dependencies** (what must happen first, or what can run in parallel)
- **Status** field (Pending / In Progress / Complete)
Group actions in whatever structure best fits the case — this might be by workstream (Forensics / Legal / Communications / Hardening), by timeline, by system, or by stakeholder. Choose the structure that makes the playbook most actionable for the user's situation.
### Reference: Common Action Categories
Draw from these as relevant — but only include what applies to the specific case, and always customize:
**Containment & Forensics:** System isolation, credential revocation, evidence preservation, IOC sweeps, access log audits, attack vector analysis, lateral movement assessment
**Data & Impact Scoping:** Identifying exactly what data was compromised, mapping affected individuals, assessing downstream risks (identity theft, discrimination, blackmail, financial fraud)
**Legal & Regulatory:** SA notification preparation, subject notification drafting, law enforcement engagement, legal privilege considerations, DPA contractual obligation review, insurance notification
**Communication:** Internal stakeholder briefing, employee/works council communication, customer communication, media response preparation, support channel setup for affected individuals
**Hardening & Prevention:** Vulnerability remediation, encryption implementation, access control tightening, monitoring enhancement, detection rule creation, security architecture review
**Governance & Documentation:** Root cause analysis, DPIA review/update, Art. 30 records update, incident response procedure revision, training needs assessment, lessons learned documentation
---
## User Override Protocol
If user disagrees with calculated severity:
1. Document original: "My assessment indicates **[LEVEL]** (SE = [score]). You wish to classify as **[USER LEVEL]**."
2. Require justification
3. If DOWNGRADE, display warning:
> ⚠️ **REGULATORY RISK WARNING**
> You are selecting lower severity than ENISA indicates. If the SA later determines higher severity was warranted, this may increase regulatory scrutiny and result in separate sanctions. Recommend documenting with legal counsel involvement.
4. Document override in Internal Compliance Log
---
## Output: Assessment Dashboard
```
╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║ BREACH ASSESSMENT SUMMARY ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ Role: [Controller / Processor / Hybrid] ║
║ Breach Type: [Confidentiality / Integrity / Availability] ║
║ (multiple types may apply) ║
║ T0 (Awareness): [Timestamp] ║
║ Clock Status: [X hours elapsed / Y hours remaining] ║
║ DPA Deadline: [If applicable: X hours / N/A] ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ SEVERITY CALCULATION ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ DPC: [Score] - [Category + Adjustments] ║
║ EI: [Score] - [Level] ║
║ CB: [Score] - [Breakdown] ║
║ SE = (DPC × EI) + CB = [Final Score] ║
║ Severity Level: [LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH / VERY HIGH] ║
║ Borderline: [YES - near X threshold / NO] ║
║ EDPB Case Match: Case [XX] - [Supports/Reconsider] ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ FLAGS ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ 🚩 Scale: [YES/NO] | 🔒 Encrypted: [YES/NO] ║
║ 👶 Vulnerable: [YES/NO] | ⚠️ Cross-Border: [YES/NO] ║
║ 🤖 AI System: [YES/NO] ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ LEGAL VERDICT ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ Notify SA: [YES/NO] - Deadline: [TIME] ║
║ Notify Subjects: [YES/NO] ║
║ Internal Log: [MANDATORY] ║
║ AI Act Art. 62: [Required/Not Required/N/A] ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ SA CONTACT DETAILS ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ Lead SA: [Name] ║
║ Portal: [URL] ║
║ Contact: [Email / Phone] ║
║ Additional SAs: [If cross-border without one-stop-shop] ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ REGULATORY INTELLIGENCE ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ [Summary of relevant enforcement precedents and guidance] ║
╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝
```
---
## Strategic Case Advisory
After presenting the Assessment Dashboard, shift into a different mode: **act as a senior strategic advisor** — a seasoned data protection lawyer with deep cybersecurity expertise who has handled hundreds of breach cases across jurisdictions.
This section goes beyond the ENISA score and EDPB case match. The formal assessment gives the user the regulatory baseline. The Strategic Advisory gives them the insight that separates competent compliance from excellent incident response.
### Advisory Principles
1. **Think like the SA, then think like opposing counsel.** Anticipate what questions the supervisory authority will ask. Then anticipate what a plaintiff's lawyer will argue in a damages claim. Advise the user to prepare for both.
2. **Identify the non-obvious risks.** Every breach has surface-level risks (the data was exposed) and deeper risks that emerge over time. Flag risks the user might not see: secondary data inference, chaining with other public data, reputational cascading effects, employee trust erosion, works council implications, insurance coverage gaps.
3. **Spot the leverage points.** What can the user do RIGHT NOW that will disproportionately improve their position? Sometimes it's the speed of notification. Sometimes it's the quality of the subject communication. Sometimes it's a specific technical measure that demonstrates Art. 32 compliance. Identify the 2-3 highest-leverage moves.
4. **Be direct about weaknesses.** If the user's security posture has obvious gaps (like unencrypted Art. 9 data), don't soften this. Name it clearly, explain why it's a problem from the SA's perspective, and advise on how to address it in the notification without creating unnecessary legal exposure.
5. **Provide strategic framing for the SA notification.** How should the user frame the incident in their Art. 33 notification? What tone, what emphasis, what level of detail? Advise on the narrative arc: what happened, why it matters, what the user is doing about it, and what has changed to prevent recurrence.
6. **Consider the human dimension.** Data subjects are real people. Advise on what they actually need to hear, not just what Art. 34 requires. A well-crafted subject notification that gives people genuine, actionable guidance builds trust. A legalistic form letter destroys it.
### Advisory Structure
Present the strategic advisory as a narrative — not tables, not checklists. Write it as if a senior partner at a top-tier data protection firm were briefing the client's crisis team in person. The tone should be:
- Confident and direct
- Practical (no academic hedging)
- Specific to this case (no generic advice)
- Honest about risks and uncertainties
- Forward-looking (what happens in 30 days, 6 months, 2 years?)
### Advisory Sections
Cover the following, tailored to the specific case:
**Case Assessment & Risk Landscape**
Go beyond the ENISA score. What makes this case particularly sensitive or, conversely, more manageable than the numbers suggest? What are the real-world consequences for the affected individuals? What are the reputational implications? Are there sector-specific considerations? Employment law intersections? Works council involvement? Criminal law dimensions?
**SA Interaction Strategy**
How should the user approach the supervisory authority? Proactive and transparent, or factual and measured? What level of detail should the initial notification include vs. what should be reserved for supplementary filings? Are there SA-specific expectations or preferences to be aware of? How to handle the likely follow-up questions?
**Notification Drafting Guidance**
Specific advice on crafting both the SA notification and the subject communication. What tone works best? What details to include vs. omit? How to describe remedial measures persuasively without overpromising? How to handle the balance between transparency and legal exposure? How to make the subject notification genuinely useful rather than merely compliant?
**Hidden Risks & Second-Order Effects**
What risks might emerge in 30 days, 6 months, or 2 years? Could this data appear on dark web marketplaces? Could affected employees file individual claims? Could a works council demand organizational changes? Could this trigger a broader SA audit beyond the breach itself? Could class action litigation emerge? Are there insurance implications?
**Defensive Documentation**
What documentation should the user create NOW that will help if this case is later scrutinized? What does a well-documented breach response look like from the SA's perspective? What evidence of "accountability" (Art. 5(2)) should be preserved?
**Competitive Advantage in Crisis**
How can the user turn this incident into an opportunity to strengthen their data protection posture? What investments or changes would both address this breach AND create lasting compliance improvements? How can the response demonstrate organizational maturity to the SA?
### Advisory Tone Examples
**Good (specific, direct, strategic):**
> "The fact that ICD-10 codes were stored unencrypted alongside full employee identifiers is your biggest vulnerability in this case. The LfDI will almost certainly ask why Art. 9 data wasn't encrypted at rest — that's a question you need a convincing answer to before you file. I'd recommend framing your notification around what you're changing: 'We have identified that our encryption posture for health data did not meet the standard we now recognize is required, and we have already initiated [specific measure].' This shows accountability without unnecessary self-incrimination."
**Bad (generic, hedging, template-like):**
> "You should consider implementing encryption for sensitive data and ensure compliance with Art. 32 GDPR requirements for technical and organizational measures."
### Web Research for Advisory
Use web_search to enrich the strategic advisory with:
- Recent SA enforcement decisions involving similar breach patterns
- Court rulings on data subject damages claims for similar data types
- Industry-specific best practice guidance
- Dark web monitoring trends for the specific data type involved
- Works council / labor law implications if employee data is involved
---
## Document Generation
After completing the assessment, offer to generate **audit-ready .docx documents**.
### Available Documents
1. **Art. 33 SA Notification** — Formal notification to Supervisory Authority
2. **Art. 34 Subject Communication** — Plain-language notification to data subjects
3. **Processor Client Notification** — Notice to controller clients (Track B)
4. **Internal Compliance Log** — Art. 33(5) mandatory documentation
5. **Non-Notification Justification** — When deciding NOT to notify
6. **Mitigation Playbook** — Prioritized checklist with owners and deadlines
7. **Complete Breach Response Package** — All applicable documents bundled
### Document Generation Process
To generate documents:
1. **Locate the docx skill:** Check for a docx generation skill in the available environment. Common paths include `/mnt/skills/public/docx/SKILL.md` (Claude.ai Projects) or the `docx-processing-anthropic` skill (Claude Code). If no docx skill is available, fall back to generating well-formatted **Markdown (.md) files** as an alternative, and inform the user that .docx generation requires the docx skill to be installed.
2. Read the templates: [references/templates.md](references/templates.md)
3. Generate each document as a properly formatted .docx file (or .md fallback) with:
- Professional formatting (headers, tables, page numbers)
- Pre-filled values from the assessment
- Clear placeholder markers `[TO BE COMPLETED]` for information the user needs to add
- Disclaimer footer on every page
- Document metadata (date, incident reference, version)
4. Save to `/mnt/user-data/outputs/` and present to user
### Document Formatting Standards
- **Paper size:** A4 (standard for EU documents)
- **Font:** Arial 11pt body, headings proportionally larger
- **Header:** "CONFIDENTIAL — [Document Type] — [Incident Reference]"
- **Footer:** "Generated with GDPR Breach Response Sentinel — Does not constitute legal advice — Page X of Y"
- **Date format:** ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD) in structured fields; localized where appropriate
---
## Post-Notification Tracking
After the initial assessment and notification, the skill supports ongoing case management.
### Tracking Dashboard
```
╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║ POST-NOTIFICATION TRACKER ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ Incident Reference: [ID] ║
║ Date of Initial Assessment: [Date] ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ SA NOTIFICATION ║
║ ☐ Initial notification submitted Due: [Date] Status: [ ] ║
║ ☐ SA acknowledgment received Status: [ ] ║
║ ☐ Supplementary information sent Due: [Date] Status: [ ] ║
║ ☐ SA inquiry response (if any) Due: [Date] Status: [ ] ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ DATA SUBJECT NOTIFICATION ║
║ ☐ Communication drafted Status: [ ] ║
║ ☐ Communication sent Date: [ ] ║
║ ☐ Subject inquiries tracked Count: [ ] ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ MITIGATION EXECUTION ║
║ ☐ Phase 1 (Immediate) complete Due: T0+4h Status: [ ]║
║ ☐ Phase 2 (Technical) complete Due: T0+72h Status: [ ]║
║ ☐ Phase 3 (Organizational) complete Due: T0+30d Status: [ ]║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ DOCUMENTATION ║
║ ☐ Internal Compliance Log finalized Status: [ ] ║
║ ☐ Root cause analysis completed Status: [ ] ║
║ ☐ Lessons learned documented Status: [ ] ║
║ ☐ DPIA update (if required) Status: [ ] ║
║ ☐ Art. 30 records updated Status: [ ] ║
╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝
```
### Follow-Up Prompts
At the end of each session, remind the user:
- "Would you like me to generate any documentation as .docx files?"
- "Do you need me to research your specific SA's notification portal and requirements?"
- "Would you like to update the post-notification tracker?"
---
## Emergency Mode
### Activation Triggers
- < 12 hours remaining on clock
- User explicitly requests
- Immediate risk to data subject safety
- T0 was > 60 hours ago
### Emergency Protocol
Display:
> ⚡ **EMERGENCY MODE ACTIVATED**
> Generating minimum viable assessment.
**Abbreviated Intake (7 questions):**
1. Role: Controller, Processor, or Both?
2. What type of data? (Simple/Behavioral/Financial/Sensitive)
3. How many people affected?
4. Was data encrypted with key secure?
5. Malicious or accidental?
6. Which countries are affected individuals in?
7. If Processor: Does your DPA specify a notification deadline shorter than 72 hours? (e.g., 24h, 48h)
**Rapid Calculation:**
- DPC: Use stated category, no adjustments
- EI: Default to 0.75 (Significant)
- CB: Score based on malicious/accidental + assume confidentiality loss
**Emergency Output:**
1. Preliminary verdict with caveats
2. Minimum viable Art. 33 notification (generated as .docx if possible)
3. Critical immediate mitigation actions (top 5 only)
4. SA contact details (via web search)
5. Follow-up checklist (REQUIRED WITHIN 48 HOURS)
---
## Critical Reminders
1. **Document EVERYTHING** — Even non-notifiable breaches (Art. 33(5))
2. **Processors notify Controllers, not SAs** — Check DPA deadline, not just 72h
3. **72 hours is maximum, not target** — "Without undue delay"
4. **Phased notification acceptable** — Don't delay for complete info
5. **SA can order subject notification** — Even if controller declined
6. **Failure to notify is separately sanctionable** — Up to €10M or 2% turnover
7. **Non-EU controllers: no one-stop-shop** — Notify each relevant SA
8. **Encryption doesn't erase breach** — Still document internally
9. **UK is separate** — Requires ICO notification post-Brexit; ICO guidance may differ from EDPB; use ICO's own self-assessment tool and notification portal
10. **AI systems have parallel obligations** — AI Act Art. 62 runs alongside GDPR
11. **Always offer document generation** — Audit-ready .docx files, not just chat output
12. **Research the specific SA** — Portal URLs and requirements vary significantly
---
## Version & Regulatory Basis
| Document | Version | Last Verified |
|----------|---------|---------------|
| EDPB Guidelines 9/2022 (Notification) | v2.0 | Check for updates via web search |
| EDPB Guidelines 01/2021 (Examples) | v2.0 | Check for updates via web search |
| ENISA Severity Methodology | v1.0 | Check for updates via web search |
| EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) | Published | Art. 62 serious incident reporting |
**Important:** Regulatory guidance evolves. The Dynamic Web Research Module should be used in every assessment to check for updates to these foundational documents.
---
Source attribution: luokai0
Original project: https://github.com/luokai0/ai-agent-skills-by-luo-kai/blob/4d2fb89cdfb75f3f6fd3c6c5ec9ad90ea129eb3c/ai-agent-skills/21-external-registries/08-pinkpixel-collection/gdpr-breach-sentinel-oliver-schmidt-prietz/SKILL.md
License: AGPL-3.0-only
License information: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
Original upstream instructions; downloaded from Mega AI Hub.
## Upstream license notice
GNU AFFERO GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 3, 19 November 2007
Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
Preamble
The GNU Affero General Public License is a free, copyleft license for
software and other kinds of works, specifically designed to ensure
cooperation with the community in the case of network server software.
The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed
to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast,
our General Public Licenses are intended to guarantee your freedom to
share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free
software for all its users.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you
want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new
free programs, and that you know you can do these things.
Developers that use our General Public Licenses protect your rights
with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer
you this License which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute
and/or modify the software.
A secondary benefit of defending all users' freedom is that
improvements made in alternate versions of the program, if they
receive widespread use, become available for other developers to
incorporate. Many developers of free software are heartened and
encouraged by the resulting cooperation. However, in the case of
software used on network servers, this result may fail to come about.
The GNU General Public License permits making a modified version and
letting the public access it on a server without ever releasing its
source code to the public.
The GNU Affero General Public License is designed specifically to
ensure that, in such cases, the modified source code becomes available
to the community. It requires the operator of a network server to
provide the source code of the modified version running there to the
users of that server. Therefore, public use of a modified version, on
a publicly accessible server, gives the public access to the source
code of the modified version.
An older license, called the Affero General Public License and
published by Affero, was designed to accomplish similar goals. This is
a different license, not a version of the Affero GPL, but Affero has
released a new version of the Affero GPL which permits relicensing under
this license.
The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
modification follow.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
0. Definitions.
"This License" refers to version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License.
"Copyright" also means copyright-like laws that apply to other kinds of
works, such as semiconductor masks.
"The Program" refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this
License. Each licensee is addressed as "you". "Licensees" and
"recipients" may be individuals or organizations.
To "modify" a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work
in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an
exact copy. The resulting work is called a "modified version" of the
earlier work or a work "based on" the earlier work.
A "covered work" means either the unmodified Program or a work based
on the Program.
To "propagate" a work means to do anything with it that, without
permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for
infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a
computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying,
distribution (with or without modification), making available to the
public, and in some countries other activities as well.
To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other
parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through
a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.
An interactive user interface displays "Appropriate Legal Notices"
to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible
feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2)
tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to the
extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the
work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License. If
the interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a
menu, a prominent item in the list meets this criterion.
1. Source Code.
The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work
for making modifications to it. "Object code" means any non-source
form of a work.
A "Standard Interface" means an interface that either is an official
standard defined by a recognized standards body, or, in the case of
interfaces specified for a particular programming language, one that
is widely used among developers working in that language.
The "System Libraries" of an executable work include anything, other
than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of
packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major
Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that
Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an
implementation is available to the public in source code form. A
"Major Component", in this context, means a major essential component
(kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system
(if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to
produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it.
The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all
the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
control those activities. However, it does not include the work's
System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free
programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but
which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source
includes interface definition files associated with source files for
the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically
linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require,
such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those
subprograms and other parts of the work.
The Corresponding Source need not include anything that users
can regenerate automatically from other parts of the Corresponding
Source.
The Corresponding Source for a work in source code form is that
same work.
2. Basic Permissions.
All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of
copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated
conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited
permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a
covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its
content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your
rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.
You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not
convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains
in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose
of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you
with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with
the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do
not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works
for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction
and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of
your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.
Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely under
the conditions stated below. Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10
makes it unnecessary.
3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.
No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological
measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article
11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or
similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such
measures.
When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid
circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention
is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to
the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or
modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's
users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of
technological measures.
4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.
You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you
receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice;
keep intact all notices stating that this License and any
non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code;
keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all
recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.
You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey,
and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.
5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.
You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to
produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the
terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified
it, and giving a relevant date.
b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is
released under this License and any conditions added under section
7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to
"keep intact all notices".
c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this
License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This
License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7
additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts,
regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no
permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not
invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.
d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display
Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive
interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your
work need not make them do so.
A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work,
and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program,
in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an
"aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not
used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users
beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work
in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other
parts of the aggregate.
6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms
of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the
machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License,
in one of these ways:
a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
(including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the
Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium
customarily used for software interchange.
b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
(including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a
written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as
long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product
model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a
copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the
product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical
medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no
more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this
conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the
Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the
written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This
alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and
only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord
with subsection 6b.
d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated
place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the
Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no
further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the
Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to
copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source
may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party)
that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain
clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the
Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the
Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is
available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.
e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided
you inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding
Source of the work are being offered to the general public at no
charge under subsection 6d.
A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded
from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be
included in conveying the object code work.
A "User Product" is either (1) a "consumer product", which means any
tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family,
or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation
into a dwelling. In determining whether a product is a consumer product,
doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage. For a particular
product received by a particular user, "normally used" refers to a
typical or common use of that class of product, regardless of the status
of the particular user or of the way in which the particular user
actually uses, or expects or is expected to use, the product. A product
is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial
commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent
the only significant mode of use of the product.
"Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods,
procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install
and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from
a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must
suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object
code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because
modification has been made.
If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or
specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as
part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the
User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a
fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the
Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied
by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply
if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install
modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has
been installed in ROM).
The requirement to provide Installation Information does not include a
requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates
for a work that has been modified or installed by the recipient, or for
the User Product in which it has been modified or installed. Access to a
network may be denied when the modification itself materially and
adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and
protocols for communication across the network.
Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided,
in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly
documented (and with an implementation available to the public in
source code form), and must require no special password or key for
unpacking, reading or copying.
7. Additional Terms.
"Additional permissions" are terms that supplement the terms of this
License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions.
Additional permissions that are applicable to the entire Program shall
be treated as though they were included in this License, to the extent
that they are valid under applicable law. If additional permissions
apply only to part of the Program, that part may be used separately
under those permissions, but the entire Program remains governed by
this License without regard to the additional permissions.
When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option
remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of
it. (Additional permissions may be written to require their own
removal in certain cases when you modify the work.) You may place
additional permissions on material, added by you to a covered work,
for which you have or can give appropriate copyright permission.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you
add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of
that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:
a) Disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently from the
terms of sections 15 and 16 of this License; or
b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or
author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal
Notices displayed by works containing it; or
c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or
requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in
reasonable ways as different from the original version; or
d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or
authors of the material; or
e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some
trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or
f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that
material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of
it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for
any liability that these contractual assumptions directly impose on
those licensors and authors.
All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further
restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you
received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
governed by this License along with a term that is a further
restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains
a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this
License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms
of that license document, provided that the further restriction does
not survive such relicensing or conveying.
If you add terms to a covered work in accord with this section, you
must place, in the relevant source files, a statement of the
additional terms that apply to those files, or a notice indicating
where to find the applicable terms.
Additional terms, permissive or non-permissive, may be stated in the
form of a separately written license, or stated as exceptions;
the above requirements apply either way.
8. Termination.
You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly
provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or
modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under
this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third
paragraph of section 11).
However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your
license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a)
provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and
finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright
holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means
prior to 60 days after the cessation.
Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is
reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the
violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have
received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that
copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after
your receipt of the notice.
Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the
licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you under
this License. If your rights have been terminated and not permanently
reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses for the same
material under section 10.
9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.
You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or
run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work
occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission
to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However,
nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or
modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do
not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a
covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.
10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.
Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically
receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and
propagate that work, subject to this License. You are not responsible
for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License.
An "entity transaction" is a transaction transferring control of an
organization, or substantially all assets of one, or subdividing an
organization, or merging organizations. If propagation of a covered
work results from an entity transaction, each party to that
transaction who receives a copy of the work also receives whatever
licenses to the work the party's predecessor in interest had or could
give under the previous paragraph, plus a right to possession of the
Corresponding Source of the work from the predecessor in interest, if
the predecessor has it or can get it with reasonable efforts.
You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the
rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may
not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of
rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation
(including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that
any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for
sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it.
11. Patents.
A "contributor" is a copyright holder who authorizes use under this
License of the Program or a work on which the Program is based. The
work thus licensed is called the contributor's "contributor version".
A contributor's "essential patent claims" are all patent claims
owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or
hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted
by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version,
but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a
consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For
purposes of this definition, "control" includes the right to grant
patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of
this License.
Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free
patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to
make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and
propagate the contents of its contributor version.
In the following three paragraphs, a "patent license" is any express
agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a patent
(such as an express permission to practice a patent or covenant not to
sue for patent infringement). To "grant" such a patent license to a
party means to make such an agreement or commitment not to enforce a
patent against the party.
If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license,
and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone
to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through a
publicly available network server or other readily accessible means,
then you must either (1) cause the Corresponding Source to be so
available, or (2) arrange to deprive yourself of the benefit of the
patent license for this particular work, or (3) arrange, in a manner
consistent with the requirements of this License, to extend the patent
license to downstream recipients. "Knowingly relying" means you have
actual knowledge that, but for the patent license, your conveying the
covered work in a country, or your recipient's use of the covered work
in a country, would infringe one or more identifiable patents in that
country that you have reason to believe are valid.
If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or
arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a
covered work, and grant a patent license to some of the parties
receiving the covered work authorizing them to use, propagate, modify
or convey a specific copy of the covered work, then the patent license
you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered
work and works based on it.
A patent license is "discriminatory" if it does not include within
the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is
conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are
specifically granted under this License. You may not convey a covered
work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is
in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment
to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying
the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the
parties who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory
patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work
conveyed by you (or copies made from those copies), or (b) primarily
for and in connection with specific products or compilations that
contain the covered work, unless you entered into that arrangement,
or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007.
Nothing in this License shall be construed as excluding or limiting
any implied license or other defenses to infringement that may
otherwise be available to you under applicable patent law.
12. No Surrender of Others' Freedom.
If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey a
covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may
not convey it at all. For example, if you agree to terms that obligate you
to collect a royalty for further conveying from those to whom you convey
the Program, the only way you could satisfy both those terms and this
License would be to refrain entirely from conveying the Program.
13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the
Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users
interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version
supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding
Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source
from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary
means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source
shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3
of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the
following paragraph.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have
permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed
under version 3 of the GNU General Public License into a single
combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this
License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work,
but the work with which it is combined will remain governed by version
3 of the GNU General Public License.
14. Revised Versions of this License.
The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of
the GNU Affero General Public License from time to time. Such new versions
will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the
Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU Affero General
Public License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the
option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered
version or of any later version published by the Free Software
Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the
GNU Affero General Public License, you may choose any version ever published
by the Free Software Foundation.
If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future
versions of the GNU Affero General Public License can be used, that proxy's
public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you
to choose that version for the Program.
Later license versions may give you additional or different
permissions. However, no additional obligations are imposed on any
author or copyright holder as a result of your choosing to follow a
later version.
15. Disclaimer of Warranty.
THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY
APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT
HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY
OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM
IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF
ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
16. Limitation of Liability.
IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS
THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY
GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE
USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF
DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD
PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS),
EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGES.
17. Interpretation of Sections 15 and 16.
If the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability provided
above cannot be given local legal effect according to their terms,
reviewing courts shall apply local law that most closely approximates
an absolute waiver of all civil liability in connection with the
Program, unless a warranty or assumption of liability accompanies a
copy of the Program in return for a fee.
END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs
If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.
To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest
to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
state the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least
the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
Copyright (C)
This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU Affero General Public License as published
by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU Affero General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU Affero General Public License
along with this program. If not, see .
Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.
If your software can interact with users remotely through a computer
network, you should also make sure that it provides a way for users to
get its source. For example, if your program is a web application, its
interface could display a "Source" link that leads users to an archive
of the code. There are many ways you could offer source, and different
solutions will be better for different programs; see section 13 for the
specific requirements.
You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or school,
if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if necessary.
For more information on this, and how to apply and follow the GNU AGPL, see
.
# Mega AI Hub resource metadata
Creator / publisher: luokai0
Original project: https://github.com/luokai0/ai-agent-skills-by-luo-kai/blob/4d2fb89cdfb75f3f6fd3c6c5ec9ad90ea129eb3c/ai-agent-skills/21-external-registries/08-pinkpixel-collection/gdpr-breach-sentinel-oliver-schmidt-prietz/SKILL.md
Attribution basis: Source repository record
Fields of work: Data & Analytics, Legal, Marketing, Sales
Roles: Compliance Officer, Customer Success Manager, Data Analyst, Legal Operations, PR & Communications
Specialties: Specialty not specified
Tools: Email (SMTP/IMAP), Microsoft Word, Gdpr Compliance Tools
Country applicability: Country not specified
Classification basis: Source catalog labels
Instruction SHA-256: 3afacc325bd9ff0b0ad2b82a05e3ddbbae41610d2a6edbbaa6b982f30b99e208