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 tmj-90/gaffer --skill data-privacygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tmj-90/gafferWrote 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/tmj-90/gaffer/data-privacy)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tmj-90/gaffer/data-privacy"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tmj-90/gaffer/data-privacy/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/tmj-90/gaffer/data-privacy"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tmj-90/gaffer/data-privacy.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 | $0.00105 | $0.01832 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00042 | $0.00733 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00366 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00183 |
Grade A, and why
data-privacy 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 16d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 125 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Handle personal data with minimisation and control
Personal data is anything that relates to an identifiable person. That includes emails, IP addresses, device and cookie ids, location, behaviour, and free text that might contain any of those. GDPR requires minimisation (Art. 5(1)(c)), storage limitation (5(1)(e)), and data protection by design and by default (Art. 25). People have rights of access (Art. 15), erasure (Art. 17, with notice to recipients under Art. 19) and portability (Art. 20), and controllers must answer them within one month (Art. 12(3)). CCPA/CPRA gives similar rights with a 45-day clock. This skill turns that into code and tests. You do not decide the lawful basis, the retention period or a new processor. Those are human decisions: raise them.
Procedure
- Inventory before you code. For every personal field the ticket touches, write
one line with: the field, its purpose, its classification (the repo's scheme, or
direct identifier / indirect / special category), and every place it lands: the
primary DB, replicas, caches, search indexes, object storage, queues, logs,
traces, metrics, analytics, error reporting, third-party APIs, LLM prompts,
backups. Call
search_lorefor the classification scheme, the field registry, retention periods, the processor list and any existing redaction, export or erasure helpers. The inventory goes in your evidence. - Minimise. Collect only what the stated purpose needs.
- No purpose, no field. If the ticket asks for data without a purpose, or for
special-category data (health, biometrics, religion and so on), raise
request_decisionwithseverity: security_required. - Prefer coarser or derived forms: a birth year instead of a birth date, a truncated IP, a city instead of GPS coordinates.
- A salted hash or tokenised id is pseudonymised, not anonymous. It is still personal data and still subject to erasure (Recital 26).
- Return only the fields each caller needs (ASVS 14.2.6).
- No purpose, no field. If the ticket asks for data without a purpose, or for
special-category data (health, biometrics, religion and so on), raise
- Register the field in code. Use the repo's annotation, schema tag or registry,
so redaction, export and erasure find it automatically. A test should fail when a
personal-looking column (
email,phone,ip,name,dob,address) is added without a classification. An unregistered field is a field nobody deletes. - Protect every flow.
- Access goes only through authorization-checked paths (the
security-authzskill). - Encryption in transit, and at rest where the platform offers it. Field-level encryption for special categories if the repo has it.
- The field is never in logs, traces, metric labels or error reports: add it to the
redaction list of the
structured-logging-and-tracingskill. - Never in URLs or query strings (ASVS 14.2.1). Never in browser storage (14.3.3).
Sensitive responses carry
Cache-Control: no-store. - Never sent to analytics, trackers or LLM endpoints unless there is a recorded purpose and processor, and then only the minimum (ASVS 14.2.3).
- Access goes only through authorization-checked paths (the
- Implement erasure end to end.
- One erasure routine walks the registry across every store in the inventory. It deletes, or anonymises where law requires the record to stay (ledgers, invoices), and calls each processor's deletion API or queues that call.
- Write a tombstone or suppression entry so that late writes, queue redelivery, replays and backup restores cannot resurrect the person. A restore must re-apply tombstones, which is how backups are kept "beyond use".
- The routine is idempotent and retry-safe (the
idempotency-and-retriesskill), and it emits an audit event without the erased data.
- Implement access and export. Build the export from the same registry. It must be structured and machine-readable (JSON or CSV), authorization-checked for the requester, gated by re-authentication, delivered through a short-lived link, and exclude other people's personal data. Record request and completion timestamps so the deadline can be shown to have been met.
- Enforce retention. Every registered field has a retention rule. A job from the
scheduled-jobsskill deletes or anonymises expired rows in bounded, resumable batches, and a crashed run must be safe to re-run. If the period is not documented, ask withrequest_decision. - Gate on consent where required. Non-essential cookies and tracking are off until consent is granted (ePrivacy Art. 5(3)). Withdrawing consent is as easy as granting it (GDPR Art. 7(3)), and a consent change is stored with a timestamp and the policy version. Honour Global Privacy Control where CCPA applies.
- Test with a PII canary. Seed a unique sentinel (for example
canary-<uuid>@example.test) into every touched field and drive the flows. Then assert:- the canary is absent from captured logs and error payloads;
- after erasure, a query of every store in the inventory finds no canary (not just the main table);
- a write or queue message that arrives after erasure does not recreate the record;
- the export contains the canary and no other user's data;
- the retention job removes expired rows and leaves live rows alone;
- with consent off, no tracking event is sent.
Record the command and summary as
test_outputthrough therecord-evidenceskill, with the inventory paragraph, then stop.
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.
- 16d ago Changed · +56 lines ec3a6024f7c6
- 19d ago First seen · 69 lines · 105 tokens per session scan A d3122b7f1dcd
data-privacy is a skill published in the GitHub repository tmj-90/gaffer (2 stars, last pushed 17d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 105 tokens to every session and 1,832 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-28.
Other skills, from other repositories
ai-ethics-and-governance-requirements
Use this skill when defining AI governance policies, designing human oversight workflows, documenting bias mitigation strategies, or meeting regulatory transparency requirements for Salesforce AI features. Trigger keywords: responsible AI, AI bias, AI audit trail, AI transparency, human-in-the-loop, AI risk inventory…
civic-publish-gate
Run deterministic source, citation, freshness, privacy, meeting-certainty, accessibility, correction-state, and human-approval checks before civic publication.
editorial-correction-review
Review a challenged civic claim and prepare a visible, append-only correction or withdrawal with downstream propagation evidence.
bulwark-brainstorm
Role-based brainstorming with dual modes: --scoped (sequential Task tool, 5 roles) and --exploratory (Agent Teams peer debate, 4 roles). Use for feasibility assessment and idea validation.
plan-creation
Create structured implementation plans via a 4-role scrum team (Product Owner, Architect, Eng/Delivery Lead, QA/Critic) with optional Agent Teams peer debate mode.
anthropic-validator
Validates Claude Code assets (skills, hooks, agents, commands, MCP servers, plugins) against official Anthropic standards. Fetches latest docs dynamically and produces structured validation reports.