Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add EngineerWithAI/engineerwith-agents --skill gdpr-data-handlinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/EngineerWithAI/engineerwith-agentsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/engineerwithai/engineerwith-agents/gdpr-data-handling)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/engineerwithai/engineerwith-agents/gdpr-data-handling"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/engineerwithai/engineerwith-agents/gdpr-data-handling/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/engineerwithai/engineerwith-agents/gdpr-data-handling"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/engineerwithai/engineerwith-agents/gdpr-data-handling.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00045 | $0.04377 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.02188 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00875 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00438 |
Grade A, and why
gdpr-data-handling scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 8d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
100% identical to gdpr-data-handling — 82 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 617 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
GDPR Data Handling
Practical implementation guide for GDPR-compliant data processing, consent management, and privacy controls.
When to Use This Skill
- Building systems that process EU personal data
- Implementing consent management
- Handling data subject requests (DSRs)
- Conducting GDPR compliance reviews
- Designing privacy-first architectures
- Creating data processing agreements
Core Concepts
1. Personal Data Categories
| Category | Examples | Protection Level |
|---|---|---|
| Basic | Name, email, phone | Standard |
| Sensitive (Art. 9) | Health, religion, ethnicity | Explicit consent |
| Criminal (Art. 10) | Convictions, offenses | Official authority |
| Children's | Under 16 data | Parental consent |
2. Legal Bases for Processing
Article 6 - Lawful Bases:
├── Consent: Freely given, specific, informed
├── Contract: Necessary for contract performance
├── Legal Obligation: Required by law
├── Vital Interests: Protecting someone's life
├── Public Interest: Official functions
└── Legitimate Interest: Balanced against rights
3. Data Subject Rights
Right to Access (Art. 15) ─┐
Right to Rectification (Art. 16) │
Right to Erasure (Art. 17) │ Must respond
Right to Restrict (Art. 18) │ within 1 month
Right to Portability (Art. 20) │
Right to Object (Art. 21) ─┘
Implementation Patterns
Pattern 1: Consent Management
// Consent data model
const consentSchema = {
userId: String,
consents: [{
purpose: String, // 'marketing', 'analytics', etc.
granted: Boolean,
timestamp: Date,
source: String, // 'web_form', 'api', etc.
version: String, // Privacy policy version
ipAddress: String, // For proof
userAgent: String // For proof
}],
auditLog: [{
action: String, // 'granted', 'withdrawn', 'updated'
purpose: String,
timestamp: Date,
source: String
}]
};
// Consent service
class ConsentManager {
async recordConsent(userId, purpose, granted, metadata) {
const consent = {
purpose,
granted,
timestamp: new Date(),
source: metadata.source,
version: await this.getCurrentPolicyVersion(),
ipAddress: metadata.ipAddress,
userAgent: metadata.userAgent
};
// Store consent
await this.db.consents.updateOne(
{ userId },
{
$push: {
consents: consent,
auditLog: {
action: granted ? 'granted' : 'withdrawn',
purpose,
timestamp: consent.timestamp,
source: metadata.source
}
}
},
{ upsert: true }
);
// Emit event for downstream systems
await this.eventBus.emit('consent.changed', {
userId,
purpose,
granted,
timestamp: consent.timestamp
});
}
async hasConsent(userId, purpose) {
const record = await this.db.consents.findOne({ userId });
if (!record) return false;
const latestConsent = record.consents
.filter(c => c.purpose === purpose)
.sort((a, b) => b.timestamp - a.timestamp)[0];
return latestConsent?.granted === true;
}
async getConsentHistory(userId) {
const record = await this.db.consents.findOne({ userId });
return record?.auditLog || [];
}
}
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 8d ago First seen · 617 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A bd55121333be
gdpr-data-handling is a skill published in the GitHub repository EngineerWithAI/engineerwith-agents (4 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 4,377 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to gdpr-data-handling, differing in 82 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
specification-writing
A workflow for writing complete patent specifications from patent claims and an invention disclosure. It adapts the document to a chosen jurisdiction, such as the US, Europe, or China.
regulatory-research-fallback
Fallback workflow for regulatory research when web extraction tools fail on government PDFs.
x-scorecard
OpenSSF Scorecard for assessing open source project security. Check security best practices and compliance. Dependency: This is an x-cmd module. Install x-cmd first (see x-cmd skill for installation options). see x-cmd skill for installation.
gesellschaftsrechtliche-satzungen-agb
Für Gesellschaftsrechtliche Satzungen AGB Abgrenzung: ordnet Norm, Beweislast und Gegenargument; Ergebnis: Prüfprodukt mit Risiko und nächstem Schritt. Fachgebiet: AGB-Recht-Prüfer. Route: gesellschaftsrechtliche-satzungen-agb.
memstack-business-gdpr
Use this skill when the user says 'GDPR', 'data protection', 'privacy compliance', 'DPA', 'DSAR', 'data subject request', 'cookie consent', 'privacy audit', 'CCPA', or asks 'do I need GDPR for this repo'. Scans the repository to detect what personal data is collected, classifies sensitivity, determines whether GDPR…
nda-review
Use when the user uploads or pastes a non-disclosure agreement and asks for review, redline, risk assessment, or a recommendation on whether to sign. Identifies missing standard protections, one-sided or unusual provisions, and operational issues; produces a structured report with severity ratings and citations to…