Output Contract

Every response this skill produces states that it is educational EU AI Act issue-spotting, not legal advice, and not proof that any duty is or is not met.

This holds without exception: the full report, a turn that only asks clarifying questions, a partial or interrupted answer, a single-finding follow-up, a correction, a refusal, and every later message in the same conversation. Length is never a reason to drop it — a one-line reply about one article still carries it. No one may receive output from this skill that could be mistaken for a lawyer’s answer.

Report header

Start with:

• Review scope: the journey, content, files, environment, and time period reviewed.
• Evidence level: the strongest evidence available, using review-rules.md.
• Legal currency: live sources checked with date and language, or the exact fallback warning from official-sources.md. If any verification step failed, was blocked, or was skipped, name it here and say which findings rest on unverified sources. Never leave a reader to assume verification happened.
• Known limits: what was not supplied, not run, not deployed, or not observed.

Required ten fields for every finding

Use a stable identifier such as EUAI-001. Include all ten fields in this order:

1. Review surface: the journey stage, exact content passage, or file and line.
2. Observed evidence: what the supplied material actually proves, without legal conclusions.
3. Possible AI Act trigger: the narrow provision or issue that the evidence may engage.
4. Role and conditions: the role and every material condition that determines whether the provision applies.
5. Official source level and exact link: label it Law, Official guidance, or Voluntary code; name the article or document and link directly to the official source.
6. Applicable date: the date for that provision and any transition that could change it.
7. Status: use exactly one allowed value from the status table below.
8. Missing facts: facts needed to confirm, narrow, or dismiss the trigger. Write None identified from this review only when justified.
9. Next action: one bounded evidence-gathering, design, content, engineering, or legal-review action.
10. Human decision required: the named decision a responsible person must make; never assign it to the agent.

Allowed status values

Do not invent synonyms such as “compliant,” “non-compliant,” “high risk,” “low risk,” “pass,” “fail,” “safe,” or “approved.”

Finding template

Evidence and citation rules

• Use a file and line for code, a named stage for a journey, and a short exact passage or timestamp for public content.
• Keep quotations short and preserve supplied wording exactly.
• Cite the operative law for every legal trigger. Add guidance only when it explains implementation and label it accurately.
• If a finding relies on more than one source level, list each separately rather than blending them.
• If the application date depends on missing facts, say so in fields 6 and 8.
• If live legal verification failed, no finding may claim that its legal statement is current.

Closing section

End with:

1. Human decisions now required: a deduplicated list drawn from field 10.
2. Evidence still needed: the shortest list that would materially change findings.
3. Separate legal signposts: other regimes named without assessment.
4. Limitations: educational issue-spotting, not legal advice or proof of compliance.

If there are no positive findings, do not say “nothing applies.” State which surfaces were checked, use no trigger found in the supplied evidence where a named trigger was tested, and repeat the evidence limits.