Structures the first hours after a security incident. breach qualification triage, ENISA severity scoring, Art. 33/34 legal bridge, 72-hour notification clock, lead SA determination, EDPB-template evidence file, AI Act Art. 73 intersection, and audit-ready document generation — in a single guided workflow.
Each capability is documented separately, tested separately, and called by the workflow at the right moment. Compose them or invoke individually.
Fifteen structured steps. The human stays accountable; the skill carries the structure, the citations, and the document trail.
Match the workflow to the situation. The skill router picks automatically; you can override.
Single-folder skill. SKILL.md is the runtime spec; references hold the knowledge corpus; evals hold the proof.
breach-sentinel/ ├── evals # Test cases + assertions │ └── evals.json # 13 cases, 132 assertions ├── references # Reference corpus │ ├── art34-communication.md │ ├── breach-sentinel-sidecar-schema.json │ ├── edpb-cases.md │ ├── edpb-template-evidence-file.md │ ├── enisa-methodology.md │ ├── mitigation-playbook.md │ ├── parallel-regimes.md │ ├── post-notification-tracking.md │ ├── strategic-advisory.md │ ├── templates.md │ └── web-research.md ├── tests │ ├── test_cli_fails_closed_on_bad_input.py │ ├── test_emit_core_artefact.py │ └── test_schema_selfvalid.py ├── validator │ ├── breach_validator │ │ ├── rules │ │ ├── __init__.py │ │ ├── core_artefact.py │ │ ├── findings.py │ │ ├── registry.py │ │ ├── runner.py │ │ ├── test_core_artefact.py │ │ ├── test_runner.py │ │ ├── test_timeutil.py │ │ └── timeutil.py │ ├── fixtures │ │ ├── must_fail │ │ └── must_pass │ ├── README.md # Deployment guide │ └── validate.py ├── CHANGELOG.md # Version history ├── README.md # Deployment guide ├── SKILL.md # Main skill instructions ├── conformance.json └── sources.lock.json
Two deployment surfaces. The skill auto-triggers on relevant keywords once installed.
breach-sentinel/ foldercp -r breach-sentinel/ \ ~/.claude/skills/user/
Every output is documented, version-pinned, and traceable to its source citation.
Every release runs against a fixed test suite. Assertions check numeric consistency, citation accuracy, and decision-tree branches.
Every legal verdict resolves to one of these instruments. No invented articles, no synthetic recitals.
The trace is the product. Nothing happens off the record — no hidden tool calls, no silent retrieval, no opaque chain-of-thought.
See CHANGELOG.md for version history.
GDPR Breach Response Sentinel — an advanced incident response skill for Claude that provides:
breach-sentinel/
├── SKILL.md # Main skill instructions (deploy this)
├── conformance.json # Portfolio standard conformance declaration (tier: structural)
├── sources.lock.json # Reference-file provenance/freshness manifest
├── evals/
│ └── evals.json # 13 test cases, 132 assertions
├── validator/ # Deterministic structural validator (module breach_validator)
│ ├── validate.py # CLI: validate a sidecar, optionally --emit-core-artefact
│ └── fixtures/ # must_pass / must_fail sidecar fixtures
├── tests/ # Cross-cutting validator tests (schema self-validity, CLI)
└── references/
├── breach-sentinel-sidecar-schema.json # Native sidecar JSON Schema (machine-readable output)
├── enisa-methodology.md # ENISA scoring tables, legal bridge, worked examples
├── edpb-template-evidence-file.md # EDPB Template [2026] field map + evidence file builder
├── art34-communication.md # Art. 34 decision framework incl. all 34(3) exceptions
├── parallel-regimes.md # AI Act Art. 73 depth + NIS2/DORA/eIDAS/etc. screen
├── edpb-cases.md # 18 EDPB breach case scenarios + analogy rules
├── templates.md # 17 document templates (Art. 33/34, handoff, follow-up …)
├── strategic-advisory.md # Advisory framework, principles, tone examples
├── mitigation-playbook.md # Design principles, output format, action categories
├── post-notification-tracking.md # Tracking dashboard template
└── web-research.md # Search query templates, source discipline, DE routing
breach-sentinel/ folder structurebreach-sentinel/ folder to your skills directory:
bash
cp -r breach-sentinel/ /path/to/your/skills/user/breach-sentinel/Just tell Claude about a breach:
"We just discovered that an external attacker exfiltrated our customer database. About 2,000 records with names, emails, and payment data. We're based in Munich. This happened yesterday at 3pm."
The skill will activate and walk you through the assessment.
| Mode | When to Use |
|---|---|
| Guided | You're unsure about details; skill asks questions one by one |
| Fast Path | You have all the facts; dump them and get an instant assessment |
| Emergency | <12 hours remaining on notification clock |
| Feature | Description |
|---|---|
| Breach Qualification Triage | Gate before the workflow: security incident vs. personal data breach (Art. 4(12)) |
| ENISA Severity Calculation | Full SE = (DPC × EI) + CB with contextual adjustments — as decision support |
| Art. 33/34 Legal Bridge | Written bridge from score → facts → safeguards → statutory conclusions in every assessment |
| EDPB Evidence File | Filled dossier mirroring the EDPB Template [2026] (public consultation closed 5 Aug 2026, final status not yet re-verified) — all 7 sections, portal-ready |
| Art. 34 Decision Module | High-risk test, exceptions 34(3)(a)/(b)/(c), communication strategy, decision memo |
| Evidence Posture | Facts / assumptions / unknowns discipline with confidence level in every assessment |
| Borderline Score Analysis | Extra scrutiny for scores near 2.0/3.0/4.0 thresholds |
| EDPB Case Matching | Maps to 18 documented scenarios from Guidelines 01/2021 — as analogies with stated limits |
| Strategic Advisory | Senior counsel-level analysis: hidden risks, SA strategy, leverage points |
| Dynamic Web Research | Current enforcement precedents and SA guidance, with source discipline rules |
| SA Contact Lookup | Finds notification portal URLs and jurisdiction-specific requirements |
| Germany SA Routing | Correctly routes to BfDI vs. LfDI/LDA based on entity type |
| Mitigation Playbook | Case-specific, flexibly structured action plan with owners and deadlines |
| AI Act Integration | Art. 73 serious incident screening (definition, deadlines, applicability) for AI breaches |
| Parallel-Regime Screen | NIS2, DORA, eIDAS, ePrivacy, criminal, insurance, contractual, works council |
| Processor Track | Art. 33(2) without-undue-delay duty, contractual DPA windows, handoff package |
| Document Generation | Audit-ready .docx files — 17 templates incl. follow-up, withdrawal, late-notification |
| Post-Notification Tracking | Ongoing case management dashboard incl. follow-up and withdrawal milestones |
| Document | Reference |
|---|---|
| GDPR Articles 33 & 34 | Breach notification obligations |
| EDPB Guidelines 9/2022 v2.0 | Personal data breach notification |
| EDPB Guidelines 01/2021 v2.0 | Examples regarding breach notification |
| EDPB Template [2026] v1.0 | Personal data breach notification template — public consultation window closed 5 Aug 2026; final adoption status not yet re-verified, check the EDPB site; national SA portals remain authoritative |
| ENISA Severity Methodology | Risk assessment formula and scoring |
| EU AI Act (Reg. 2024/1689) | Art. 73 serious incident reporting (applies from 2 Aug 2026) |
This skill provides guidance based on publicly available GDPR regulatory materials. It does not constitute legal advice. All notification decisions should involve qualified legal counsel and your organization's DPO.
A passing run of the bundled structural validator (validator/validate.py) means a breach-sidecar file is internally consistent and complete against its own schema and rule set — it is not a check that the underlying ENISA severity score or Art. 33/34 notification conclusion is legally correct. That judgment still requires your organization's DPO or qualified legal counsel.
*Created by Oliver Schmidt-Prietz — OneZero Legal