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 onfire7777/universal-ai-skills-library --skill ai-privacy-assessmentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/onfire7777/universal-ai-skills-libraryWrote 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/onfire7777/universal-ai-skills-library/ai-privacy-assessment)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/onfire7777/universal-ai-skills-library/ai-privacy-assessment"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/onfire7777/universal-ai-skills-library/ai-privacy-assessment/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/onfire7777/universal-ai-skills-library/ai-privacy-assessment"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/onfire7777/universal-ai-skills-library/ai-privacy-assessment.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 | $0.00109 | $0.03680 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00055 | $0.01840 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00736 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00368 |
Grade A, and why
ai-privacy-assessment 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 9d 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
89% identical to ai-privacy-assessment — 18 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 — 226 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Conducting AI System Privacy Assessment
Overview
AI systems that process personal data require a combined privacy and conformity assessment addressing both GDPR obligations and the EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689). This skill integrates the GDPR Art. 35 DPIA framework with AI-specific risk assessment, encompassing training data lawfulness, Art. 22 automated decision-making implications, algorithmic fairness, and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework MAP function. The assessment methodology draws from the EDPB-EDPS Joint Opinion 5/2021 on the AI Act proposal and subsequent EDPB Guidelines 06/2025 on AI and data protection.
Legal Framework
GDPR Provisions Applicable to AI
| Provision | Application to AI Systems |
|---|---|
| Art. 5(1)(a) — Lawfulness, fairness, transparency | AI processing must have a lawful basis; the logic of AI decisions must be explainable to data subjects |
| Art. 5(1)(b) — Purpose limitation | Training data collected for one purpose cannot be used to train AI models for an incompatible purpose without further lawful basis |
| Art. 5(1)(c) — Data minimisation | AI models should not require more personal data than necessary; synthetic data and anonymisation should be considered |
| Art. 5(1)(d) — Accuracy | AI outputs affecting individuals must be accurate; model drift must be monitored |
| Art. 6(1) — Lawful basis | Each stage of AI processing (data collection, model training, inference, output use) requires a lawful basis |
| Art. 9 — Special categories | Training on health, biometric, genetic, racial, political, religious, sexual orientation, or trade union data requires an Art. 9(2) exemption |
| Art. 13-14 — Transparency | Privacy notices must disclose the existence of automated decision-making, meaningful information about the logic involved, and the significance and envisaged consequences |
| Art. 22 — Automated decision-making | Data subjects have the right not to be subject to decisions based solely on automated processing that produce legal effects or similarly significantly affect them, with exceptions under Art. 22(2) |
| Art. 25 — Data protection by design | AI systems must embed privacy protections from the design phase: privacy-preserving ML techniques, differential privacy, federated learning |
| Art. 35 — DPIA | AI systems meeting EDPB WP248rev.01 criteria (evaluation/scoring, automated decision-making, innovative technology) require a DPIA |
What ships with it
4 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 226 lines · 109 tokens per session scan A 7252f7d9600e
ai-privacy-assessment is a skill published in the GitHub repository onfire7777/universal-ai-skills-library (16 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 109 tokens to every session and 3,680 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 89% identical to ai-privacy-assessment, differing in 18 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
atmos-aws-compliance
AWS compliance commands in Atmos: atmos aws compliance report, Security Hub standards, CIS AWS, PCI DSS, SOC2, HIPAA, NIST, report formats, AI summaries.
security-compliance
Guides security professionals in implementing defense-in-depth security architectures, achieving compliance with industry frameworks (SOC2, ISO27001, GDPR, HIPAA), conducting threat modeling and risk assessments, managing security operations and incident response, and embedding security throughout the SDLC.
ai-policy-generator
AI governance policy creation for nonprofits and enterprises with frameworks, risk assessment, ethical guidelines, and compliance templates. Use when drafting AI usage policies, responsible AI frameworks, or organizational AI governance documents.
compliance-engineering
SOC2, HIPAA, GDPR, PCI-DSS, FedRAMP compliance implementation in code. Audit logging, data encryption, access controls, privacy by design, and regulatory requirement mapping. Use when implementing compliance controls, preparing for audits, or building privacy-compliant systems.
jk
Manage Jenkins controllers with jk, including jobs, runs, logs, artifacts, credentials, nodes, queues, and plugins.
harness-init-runner
Initialize a lightweight repo-local Node.js harness (harness/ + .harness/) WITHOUT AIOS dependency. Use ONLY when you need a standalone, portable harness. If AIOS is installed, use aios-long-running-harness instead — it has rex Command hosting, ContextDB integration, and checkpoint recovery.