lawvable/awesome-legal-skills/gdpr-breach-sentinel-oliver-schmidt-prietz

Claude Code and agent skill by lawvable/awesome-legal-skills

Trust tier 3
  • community
Source check pending

Checking that the SKILL.md file is still in the repository.

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 — including "is this even a personal data breach?" triage, (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 "Ransomware" 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 audit-ready breach documentation (.docx) or an EDPB-template-aligned breach notification / evidence file — including follow-up and withdrawal notifications, (11) Breach involves an AI system requiring AI Act Art. 73 serious incident screening.

Install

npx vskill@latest install lawvable/awesome-legal-skills/gdpr-breach-sentinel-oliver-schmidt-prietz

SKILL.md

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. Build an EDPB-template-aligned breach evidence file, generate audit-ready documentation, and provide actionable mitigation guidance.


Session Initialization

1. Display Disclaimer (show at session start, do not block)
Important: This skill provides structured GDPR breach-notification guidance based on Art. 33–34 GDPR, EDPB Guidelines, and ENISA methodology. It is not legal advice. Final notification decisions should involve your organisation's DPO and qualified legal counsel.
2. Confidentiality & Input Hygiene (show with disclaimer, do not block)
Handle with care: This may be a live incident.
- Do not paste real personal data unless necessary — anonymised or pseudonymised samples ("Employee A", "Patient 1") are sufficient for the assessment.
- Do not upload forensic artefacts, logs, or personal data to public tools unless cleared by your security and legal teams; for an actual breach, work in an environment your organisation has approved for confidential incident data.
- Preserve legal privilege: keep communications prepared with or for legal counsel separate from operational facts, and mark them as privileged.
- Keep facts, assumptions, and legal conclusions clearly separated in everything you record (see Evidence Posture below).
3. 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
4. Breach Qualification Gate (run BEFORE intake)

Not every security incident is a personal data breach. Establish two things first:

  1. Security breach? "Has there been a breach of security affecting your systems, premises, processes, or people?"
  2. Personal data affected? "Did it lead — actually or possibly — to the accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure of, or access to, personal data transmitted, stored or otherwise processed?" (Art. 4(12))

Classify into exactly one verdict:

Triage VerdictMeaningNext Step
SECURITY INCIDENT ONLYNo personal data affected (e.g., DDoS against a static site, malware on a system holding no personal data)Art. 33/34 not triggered. Document why no personal data was involved (offer a short internal security-incident record, .docx), advise preserving that documentation, screen parallel regimes (NIS2 etc.), and stop the GDPR workflow — no dashboard, no ENISA run
BREACH CONFIRMEDPersonal data demonstrably affectedProceed to intake — the 72h clock analysis applies
BREACH LIKELY — UNDER INVESTIGATIONPersonal data probably affected but not yet confirmedProceed to intake; treat T0 conservatively and use the "Still Under Investigation" pathway
INSUFFICIENT FACTSCannot yet say whether personal data is affectedPreserve evidence (logs, system images, access records), define fact-finding actions with owners and deadlines, re-triage as soon as facts emerge

Only the last three verdicts proceed to intake (and appear in the Assessment Dashboard's Triage row); a SECURITY INCIDENT ONLY verdict ends with a short triage record instead of the full dashboard. If facts later change (e.g., the incident turns out to have touched personal data), re-run the gate.

5. 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.

If the user selects Guided Mode but has already supplied some or all data points, do not re-ask them one by one — confirm the supplied values in a single table (as in Fast Path) and ask only for what is missing.

Quick Decision Trees

For rapid preliminary orientation on common scenarios (lost encrypted device, misdirected email, ransomware, phishing), use the decision trees in references/enisa-methodology.md §0. Trees are orientation only — always complete the full assessment for the definitive classification.


Standard Mode: Question Sequence (Guided Mode)

Ask questions ONE AT A TIME in this order:

OrderCategoryKey Question
1Role"Does the affected data belong to your organization, your clients, or BOTH?"
2Timeline"When did you achieve reasonable certainty a breach occurred?" (This is T0)
3Breach 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."
4Data Categories"What categories of personal data were involved?"
5Subject Count"Approximately how many individuals are affected?"
6Identifiers"What identifiers are present? (names, emails, IDs, etc.)"
7Encryption"Was the data encrypted? Is the key secure? Stored separately?"
8Malicious Intent"Was this accidental or intentional (theft, hacking)?"
9Cross-Border"Are affected individuals in multiple EU Member States? Where is your main establishment?"
10DPA Deadlines"Does your Data Processing Agreement specify a notification window? (Common: 24h or 48h)"
11AI System"Does this breach involve an AI system? (e.g., model leak, adversarial attack, AI-generated output exposure)"
Role Determination (Track Selection)
ScenarioTrackAction
Controller OnlyAFull risk assessment, SA notification decision
Processor OnlyBNotify controller without undue delay; prepare provisional factual/risk support package; final Art. 33/34 decision remains with the controller
Hybrid (Both)A+BRun 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:

StageT0 EventObligation TriggeredDeadline
Stage 1: Processor T0 (T0-P)Processor becomes aware of the breachNotify the controller "without undue delay" (Art. 33(2))Statutory: without undue delay; contractual: per DPA (often 24-48h)
Stage 2: Controller T0Controller is informed by the processor (per EDPB Guidelines 9/2022, the controller should be considered "aware" once the processor has informed it)Controller's 72h clock starts for SA notification72h from controller's T0

Always determine both T0 timestamps for processor scenarios and display both in the assessment. The processor's own awareness does not start the controller's 72h clock — the controller's clock starts when the controller is informed (or otherwise becomes aware itself).

Processor Deadlines (Track B)

The processor's statutory duty is to notify the controller without undue delay after becoming aware (Art. 33(2)). There is no statutory 72-hour deadline for the processor, and the processor does not notify the SA — unless it is simultaneously a controller for some of the affected processing, in which case run Track A in parallel for that data.

On top of the statutory duty, most DPAs add a contractual notification window:

  • 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:

  1. Establish the processor awareness time (T0-P).
  2. Ask for the DPA window and compute the contractual deadline from T0-P.
  3. Treat the contractual deadline as the operational target. Where the DPA is silent, "without undue delay" still means hours, not days.
  4. Explain the downstream consequence: the controller's 72h clock starts when the processor informs it — prompt processor notification directly protects the controller's compliance.

Track B output must show: processor awareness time (T0-P) · contractual deadline and time remaining · "without undue delay" status · controller handoff package completeness (see references/templates.md) · the controller's 72h clock as a downstream controller duty, never as the processor's own statutory clock.

Supply Chain / Sub-Processor Chain Breaches

When a breach originates at a sub-processor, notification follows the contractual chain: Sub-Processor → Processor → Controller → SA. Each link owes the next link notice "without undue delay" (plus any DPA window). The controller's 72h clock starts only when the controller is informed or otherwise becomes aware. Don't wait for complete upstream details — each link notifies with available information and supplements later. Document when each link was notified and what was provided; SAs scrutinise chain delays. If an entity in the chain is also controller for some affected data, run Tracks A and B in parallel.


Risk Assessment (ENISA Methodology)

Formula: SE = (DPC × EI) + CB

For detailed scoring tables, read references/enisa-methodology.md.

Quick Reference

DPC (Data Processing Context): 1-4 (hard bounds after adjustments)

CategoryScore
Simple (name, contact)1
Behavioral (location, browsing)2
Financial (bank, salary)3
Sensitive Art. 9 (health, biometric)4

This is the start of the file. Read the full SKILL.md on GitHub.

Security

  • Security scanPassed, 95 of 100Pattern checks on the skill's files.
  • Model reviewPassed

Quality evaluation

  • Task evaluationNot runNo evaluation yet. Run one in Skill Studio.

Source

Popularity

Repository stars
213
Repository forks
17
7-day trend score
27

Stars and forks are for the whole GitHub repository, not this skill alone. Refreshed 29 Mar 2026, 7 months ago.

Works with

Any agent vskill installs to: 56 targets in all. These 39 have a page on this site.

  • Claude Code
  • Cursor
  • GitHub Copilot
  • Windsurf
  • Codex
  • Gemini CLI
  • Cline
  • Amp
  • Roo Code
  • Goose
  • Continue
  • Kilo Code
  • Junie
  • Trae
  • OpenHands
  • Qwen Code
  • AI Agent
  • Tabnine Chat
  • Sourcegraph Cody
  • Amazon Q
  • Firebase Genkit
  • Sweep
  • Devin
  • Phind
  • Mentat
  • Claude Desktop
  • Aider
  • GPT Pilot
  • Plandex
  • bolt.new
  • v0
  • Replit Agent
  • Anse
  • TypingMind
  • BetterChatGPT
  • LibreChat
  • Warp AI
  • Pieces
  • Fig AI
Embed badge
vskill VERIFIED badge
[![vskill VERIFIED](https://verified-skill.com/api/v1/skills/lawvable/awesome-legal-skills/gdpr-breach-sentinel-oliver-schmidt-prietz/badge)](https://verified-skill.com/skills/lawvable/awesome-legal-skills/gdpr-breach-sentinel-oliver-schmidt-prietz)

Something wrong with this skill or its page? Tell us.