[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6BYRN3XZ6KH1PM9DMK50H0A":3,"skill-same:01M6BYRN3XZ6KH1PM9DMK50H0A":89},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":16,"categories":17,"keywords":18,"publishedAt":28,"linkOnly":29,"markdownContent":30,"markdownBody":31,"frontMatter":32,"refName":42,"commitSha":43,"skillDirectory":44,"forksCount":45,"repositoryHtmlUrl":46,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":47,"ownerBlogUrl":6,"ownerDescription":6,"updatedAt":48,"install":49,"resources":62},"01M6BYRN3XZ6KH1PM9DMK50H0A","to-questionnaire",null,"Turn a decision you can't fully answer into a questionnaire for someone else to fill in.","Vortex375\u002Fseraph","Vortex375","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F5016523?v=4","01M6BYMHA5FQE4EMD6BSZ13M46","Benjamin Schmitz","01M6BYMHEYGQ7DM3Q8A7KBNZ48",2,"AGPL-3.0","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FVortex375\u002Fseraph\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fapp\u002Fseraph_app\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fto-questionnaire\u002FSKILL.md",[],[19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27],"to questionnaire","questionnaire","decision","you","answer","true","can","for","fill","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: multi-jurisdiction-matrix\ndescription: >-\n  Guides building a multi-jurisdiction privacy compliance matrix for organisations\n  operating across multiple countries. Covers common requirements identification,\n  jurisdiction-specific deltas, gap analysis, and harmonised control frameworks.\n  Keywords: multi-jurisdiction, compliance matrix, harmonised controls, gap analysis,\n  jurisdiction mapping.\nlicense: Apache-2.0\nmetadata:\n  author: mukul975\n  version: \"1.0\"\n  domain: privacy\n  subdomain: global-privacy-regulations\n  tags: \"multi-jurisdiction, compliance-matrix, harmonised-controls, gap-analysis, jurisdiction-mapping\"\n---\n\n# Multi-Jurisdiction Privacy Compliance Matrix\n\n## Overview\n\nOrganisations operating across multiple jurisdictions face the challenge of complying with overlapping, divergent, and sometimes conflicting privacy requirements. A multi-jurisdiction compliance matrix provides a structured approach to identifying common requirements across all applicable privacy laws, mapping jurisdiction-specific variations (deltas), identifying gaps between current compliance posture and legal requirements, and designing harmonised controls that satisfy the most stringent requirements across all jurisdictions.\n\n## Compliance Matrix Structure\n\n### Dimension 1: Requirement Categories\n\n| Category | Sub-Categories |\n|----------|---------------|\n| Lawful basis for processing | Consent, legitimate interest, contract, legal obligation, vital interests, public interest |\n| Individual rights | Access, correction, deletion\u002Ferasure, portability, restriction, objection, automated decision review |\n| Consent management | Form, withdrawal, children, sensitive data, separate consent |\n| Data collection and notice | Notice content, timing, language, format |\n| Cross-border transfers | Mechanisms, adequacy, contractual safeguards, data localisation |\n| Data protection officer | Appointment criteria, qualifications, independence, functions |\n| Breach notification | Authority notification, individual notification, timelines, content |\n| Impact assessment | When required, contents, review cycle |\n| Security safeguards | Technical measures, organisational measures, encryption, access control |\n| Retention and deletion | Limitation periods, destruction methods, legal holds |\n| Enforcement and penalties | Administrative fines, criminal penalties, civil liability |\n| Record-keeping | Processing records, consent records, transfer records, breach records |\n\n### Dimension 2: Jurisdictions\n\nFor Zenith Global Enterprises, the compliance matrix covers:\n\n| Jurisdiction | Primary Law | Regulator |\n|-------------|-------------|-----------|\n| European Union | GDPR | National DPAs \u002F EDPB |\n| United Kingdom | UK GDPR + DPA 2018 | ICO |\n| Brazil | LGPD (Lei 13.709\u002F2018) | ANPD |\n| China | PIPL | CAC |\n| South Korea | PIPA | PIPC |\n| India | DPDP Act 2023 | DPBI |\n| Thailand | PDPA B.E. 2562 | PDPC |\n| Singapore | PDPA 2012 | PDPC |\n| Japan | APPI | PPC |\n| Australia | Privacy Act 1988 | OAIC |\n| United States | State laws (CCPA\u002FCPRA, etc.) | State AGs \u002F CPPA (California) |\n\n## Cross-Jurisdiction Requirement Comparison\n\n### Lawful Bases Comparison\n\n| Jurisdiction | Consent | Contract | Legitimate Interest | Legal Obligation | Vital Interests | Other Unique Bases |\n|-------------|---------|----------|-------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-------------------|\n| EU (GDPR) | Art. 6(1)(a) | Art. 6(1)(b) | Art. 6(1)(f) | Art. 6(1)(c) | Art. 6(1)(d) | Public interest (Art. 6(1)(e)) |\n| Brazil (LGPD) | Art. 7, I | Art. 7, V | Art. 7, IX | Art. 7, II | Art. 7, VII | Credit protection (Art. 7, X); Research (Art. 7, IV); Public policy (Art. 7, III); Health (Art. 7, VIII); Exercise of rights (Art. 7, VI) |\n| China (PIPL) | Art. 13(1) | Art. 13(2) | None | Art. 13(3) | Art. 13(4) | Publicly disclosed (Art. 13(6)); Other statutory (Art. 13(7)) |\n| Korea (PIPA) | Art. 15(1)(1) | Art. 15(1)(4) | Art. 15(1)(6) (2023) | Art. 15(1)(2) | Art. 15(1)(5) | Public institution duty (Art. 15(1)(3)) |\n| India (DPDP) | Section 6 | N\u002FA (under legitimate uses) | N\u002FA | Section 7(c) | Section 7(d) | Employment (Section 7(f)); State functions (Section 7(b)) |\n| Japan (APPI) | Implied consent | Permitted purpose | None (use limitation approach) | Statutory basis | Life protection | Pseudonymous processing (relaxed rules) |\n\n### Breach Notification Timeline Comparison\n\n| Jurisdiction | Authority Timeline | Individual Timeline | Threshold |\n|-------------|-------------------|--------------------|-----------|\n| EU (GDPR) | 72 hours from awareness | Without undue delay | Risk to rights and freedoms |\n| UK GDPR | 72 hours from awareness | Without undue delay | Risk to rights and freedoms |\n| Brazil (LGPD) | 3 business days | 3 business days | Relevant risk or damage |\n| China (PIPL) | Promptly (no fixed deadline) | Promptly | Any PI security incident |\n| Korea (PIPA) | 72 hours (1,000+ individuals) | Without delay | Any breach |\n| India (DPDP) | 72 hours (draft rules) | 72 hours (draft rules) | Likely harm to data principal |\n| Thailand (PDPA) | 72 hours | Without delay if high risk | Affects rights and freedoms |\n| Singapore (PDPA) | 3 calendar days after assessment | As soon as practicable | Significant harm OR 500+ individuals |\n| Japan (APPI) | 3-5 business days (preliminary) | Promptly | PPC-defined thresholds |\n| Australia (Privacy Act) | As soon as practicable (30-day assessment) | As soon as practicable | Likely serious harm |\n\n### Children's Age Thresholds\n\n| Jurisdiction | Age Threshold | Parental Consent Mechanism |\n|-------------|--------------|---------------------------|\n| EU (GDPR) | 16 (Member States may lower to 13) | Art. 8: Parental consent for ISS |\n| Brazil (LGPD) | Best interest standard | At least one parent's consent |\n| China (PIPL) | Under 14 = minor PI | Parent\u002Fguardian consent |\n| Korea (PIPA) | Under 14 | Legal representative consent |\n| India (DPDP) | Under 18 | Verifiable parental consent |\n| Thailand (PDPA) | Under 10 for parental consent | Parent\u002Fguardian consent |\n| Singapore (PDPA) | No specific age (reasonable expectations) | Not specified |\n| Japan (APPI) | No specific threshold | General consent rules apply |\n| Australia | Under 18 (reform amendments) | Best interests standard; children's code |\n\n## Harmonised Control Framework\n\n### Principle: Highest Common Denominator\n\nThe harmonised control framework applies the most stringent requirement from any jurisdiction as the baseline control, ensuring compliance across all operating jurisdictions.\n\n### Harmonised Controls for Zenith Global Enterprises\n\n| Control Area | Harmonised Standard | Driven By |\n|-------------|-------------------|-----------|\n| Consent | Free, specific, informed, unambiguous, separate per purpose, with easy withdrawal | EU GDPR + China PIPL separate consent |\n| Breach notification | 72 hours to authority + individuals simultaneously | EU GDPR \u002F Korea PIPA \u002F India DPDP |\n| Children's consent | Parental consent for all processing of under-18 data | India DPDP (18 threshold) |\n| DPO appointment | Appoint in all jurisdictions with >500 employees or significant processing | EU GDPR \u002F Thailand PDPA \u002F Brazil LGPD |\n| Impact assessment | Conduct for all high-risk processing, cross-border transfers, automated decisions | EU GDPR + China PIPL + Australia (2024) |\n| Retention | Delete within 5 days of purpose fulfilment | Korea PIPA (most stringent) |\n| Security | AES-256 encryption at rest and TLS 1.3 in transit | Cross-jurisdiction best practice |\n| Cross-border transfer | Contractual safeguards + TIA + consent where required | EU GDPR SCCs + China PIPL mechanisms |\n| Record-keeping | 7-year retention for consent records, processing records, transfer records | India DPDP (7-year consent manager), extended by statutory requirements |\n| Automated decisions | Transparency notice + human review + impact assessment | EU GDPR Art. 22 + Australia 2024 |\n\n## Jurisdiction-Specific Deltas\n\n### Requirements Unique to Specific Jurisdictions\n\n| Delta | Jurisdiction | Requirement | Harmonised Approach |\n|-------|-------------|-------------|-------------------|\n| Credit protection basis | Brazil | Art. 7, X — lawful basis for credit protection | Document where Brazil-specific basis is relied upon |\n| Separate consent (单独同意) | China | Five specific separate consent triggers | Implement separate consent globally where any trigger is met |\n| Pre-transfer information | Japan | Provide destination country PI protection system info before consent | Include in all cross-border consent forms globally |\n| DNC Registry check | Singapore | Mandatory check before telephone\u002FSMS marketing | Implement DNC checking in Singapore; voluntary in other jurisdictions |\n| Data localisation | China (CIIO) | CIIO must store data in PRC | Local storage for PRC data; process copies abroad |\n| Resident registration number encryption | Korea | Mandatory encryption for RRN | Encrypt all government identifiers in all jurisdictions |\n| Consent Manager | India | Registered intermediary for consent management | Integrate with consent manager in India; optional elsewhere |\n| Pseudonymisation framework | Korea \u002F Japan | Statutory pseudonymisation frameworks | Implement pseudonymisation programme meeting both PIPA and APPI standards |\n\n## Gap Identification Process\n\n### Step 1: Map Current Controls\n1. Document existing privacy controls, policies, and procedures.\n2. Map each control to the requirements of each applicable jurisdiction.\n3. Identify controls that satisfy requirements in multiple jurisdictions.\n\n### Step 2: Identify Gaps\n1. For each jurisdiction, identify requirements not met by existing controls.\n2. Classify gaps as: critical (legal non-compliance), significant (enforcement risk), or minor (best practice deficit).\n3. Prioritise gaps based on: regulatory activity in the jurisdiction, potential penalty exposure, data subject volume.\n\n### Step 3: Design Remediation\n1. Where possible, design a single harmonised control that addresses the gap across all jurisdictions.\n2. Where harmonisation is not possible (conflicting requirements), design jurisdiction-specific controls.\n3. Estimate remediation effort and timeline.\n4. Assign ownership and track implementation.\n\n## Compliance Matrix Governance\n\n| Element | Detail |\n|---------|--------|\n| Matrix owner | Chief Privacy Officer, Zenith Global Enterprises |\n| Update frequency | Quarterly for law changes; annual comprehensive review |\n| Change trigger | New jurisdiction entry, significant law amendment, enforcement action |\n| Review committee | Privacy Steering Committee (CPO, regional DPOs, Legal, IT Security) |\n| Tool | Compliance matrix maintained in GRC platform with automated law change alerts |\n","# Multi-Jurisdiction Privacy Compliance Matrix\n\n## Overview\n\nOrganisations operating across multiple jurisdictions face the challenge of complying with overlapping, divergent, and sometimes conflicting privacy requirements. A multi-jurisdiction compliance matrix provides a structured approach to identifying common requirements across all applicable privacy laws, mapping jurisdiction-specific variations (deltas), identifying gaps between current compliance posture and legal requirements, and designing harmonised controls that satisfy the most stringent requirements across all jurisdictions.\n\n## Compliance Matrix Structure\n\n### Dimension 1: Requirement Categories\n\n| Category | Sub-Categories |\n|----------|---------------|\n| Lawful basis for processing | Consent, legitimate interest, contract, legal obligation, vital interests, public interest |\n| Individual rights | Access, correction, deletion\u002Ferasure, portability, restriction, objection, automated decision review |\n| Consent management | Form, withdrawal, children, sensitive data, separate consent |\n| Data collection and notice | Notice content, timing, language, format |\n| Cross-border transfers | Mechanisms, adequacy, contractual safeguards, data localisation |\n| Data protection officer | Appointment criteria, qualifications, independence, functions |\n| Breach notification | Authority notification, individual notification, timelines, content |\n| Impact assessment | When required, contents, review cycle |\n| Security safeguards | Technical measures, organisational measures, encryption, access control |\n| Retention and deletion | Limitation periods, destruction methods, legal holds |\n| Enforcement and penalties | Administrative fines, criminal penalties, civil liability |\n| Record-keeping | Processing records, consent records, transfer records, breach records |\n\n### Dimension 2: Jurisdictions\n\nFor Zenith Global Enterprises, the compliance matrix covers:\n\n| Jurisdiction | Primary Law | Regulator |\n|-------------|-------------|-----------|\n| European Union | GDPR | National DPAs \u002F EDPB |\n| United Kingdom | UK GDPR + DPA 2018 | ICO |\n| Brazil | LGPD (Lei 13.709\u002F2018) | ANPD |\n| China | PIPL | CAC |\n| South Korea | PIPA | PIPC |\n| India | DPDP Act 2023 | DPBI |\n| Thailand | PDPA B.E. 2562 | PDPC |\n| Singapore | PDPA 2012 | PDPC |\n| Japan | APPI | PPC |\n| Australia | Privacy Act 1988 | OAIC |\n| United States | State laws (CCPA\u002FCPRA, etc.) | State AGs \u002F CPPA (California) |\n\n## Cross-Jurisdiction Requirement Comparison\n\n### Lawful Bases Comparison\n\n| Jurisdiction | Consent | Contract | Legitimate Interest | Legal Obligation | Vital Interests | Other Unique Bases |\n|-------------|---------|----------|-------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-------------------|\n| EU (GDPR) | Art. 6(1)(a) | Art. 6(1)(b) | Art. 6(1)(f) | Art. 6(1)(c) | Art. 6(1)(d) | Public interest (Art. 6(1)(e)) |\n| Brazil (LGPD) | Art. 7, I | Art. 7, V | Art. 7, IX | Art. 7, II | Art. 7, VII | Credit protection (Art. 7, X); Research (Art. 7, IV); Public policy (Art. 7, III); Health (Art. 7, VIII); Exercise of rights (Art. 7, VI) |\n| China (PIPL) | Art. 13(1) | Art. 13(2) | None | Art. 13(3) | Art. 13(4) | Publicly disclosed (Art. 13(6)); Other statutory (Art. 13(7)) |\n| Korea (PIPA) | Art. 15(1)(1) | Art. 15(1)(4) | Art. 15(1)(6) (2023) | Art. 15(1)(2) | Art. 15(1)(5) | Public institution duty (Art. 15(1)(3)) |\n| India (DPDP) | Section 6 | N\u002FA (under legitimate uses) | N\u002FA | Section 7(c) | Section 7(d) | Employment (Section 7(f)); State functions (Section 7(b)) |\n| Japan (APPI) | Implied consent | Permitted purpose | None (use limitation approach) | Statutory basis | Life protection | Pseudonymous processing (relaxed rules) |\n\n### Breach Notification Timeline Comparison\n\n| Jurisdiction | Authority Timeline | Individual Timeline | Threshold |\n|-------------|-------------------|--------------------|-----------|\n| EU (GDPR) | 72 hours from awareness | Without undue delay | Risk to rights and freedoms |\n| UK GDPR | 72 hours from awareness | Without undue delay | Risk to rights and freedoms |\n| Brazil (LGPD) | 3 business days | 3 business days | Relevant risk or damage |\n| China (PIPL) | Promptly (no fixed deadline) | Promptly | Any PI security incident |\n| Korea (PIPA) | 72 hours (1,000+ individuals) | Without delay | Any breach |\n| India (DPDP) | 72 hours (draft rules) | 72 hours (draft rules) | Likely harm to data principal |\n| Thailand (PDPA) | 72 hours | Without delay if high risk | Affects rights and freedoms |\n| Singapore (PDPA) | 3 calendar days after assessment | As soon as practicable | Significant harm OR 500+ individuals |\n| Japan (APPI) | 3-5 business days (preliminary) | Promptly | PPC-defined thresholds |\n| Australia (Privacy Act) | As soon as practicable (30-day assessment) | As soon as practicable | Likely serious harm |\n\n### Children's Age Thresholds\n\n| Jurisdiction | Age Threshold | Parental Consent Mechanism |\n|-------------|--------------|---------------------------|\n| EU (GDPR) | 16 (Member States may lower to 13) | Art. 8: Parental consent for ISS |\n| Brazil (LGPD) | Best interest standard | At least one parent's consent |\n| China (PIPL) | Under 14 = minor PI | Parent\u002Fguardian consent |\n| Korea (PIPA) | Under 14 | Legal representative consent |\n| India (DPDP) | Under 18 | Verifiable parental consent |\n| Thailand (PDPA) | Under 10 for parental consent | Parent\u002Fguardian consent |\n| Singapore (PDPA) | No specific age (reasonable expectations) | Not specified |\n| Japan (APPI) | No specific threshold | General consent rules apply |\n| Australia | Under 18 (reform amendments) | Best interests standard; children's code |\n\n## Harmonised Control Framework\n\n### Principle: Highest Common Denominator\n\nThe harmonised control framework applies the most stringent requirement from any jurisdiction as the baseline control, ensuring compliance across all operating jurisdictions.\n\n### Harmonised Controls for Zenith Global Enterprises\n\n| Control Area | Harmonised Standard | Driven By |\n|-------------|-------------------|-----------|\n| Consent | Free, specific, informed, unambiguous, separate per purpose, with easy withdrawal | EU GDPR + China PIPL separate consent |\n| Breach notification | 72 hours to authority + individuals simultaneously | EU GDPR \u002F Korea PIPA \u002F India DPDP |\n| Children's consent | Parental consent for all processing of under-18 data | India DPDP (18 threshold) |\n| DPO appointment | Appoint in all jurisdictions with >500 employees or significant processing | EU GDPR \u002F Thailand PDPA \u002F Brazil LGPD |\n| Impact assessment | Conduct for all high-risk processing, cross-border transfers, automated decisions | EU GDPR + China PIPL + Australia (2024) |\n| Retention | Delete within 5 days of purpose fulfilment | Korea PIPA (most stringent) |\n| Security | AES-256 encryption at rest and TLS 1.3 in transit | Cross-jurisdiction best practice |\n| Cross-border transfer | Contractual safeguards + TIA + consent where required | EU GDPR SCCs + China PIPL mechanisms |\n| Record-keeping | 7-year retention for consent records, processing records, transfer records | India DPDP (7-year consent manager), extended by statutory requirements |\n| Automated decisions | Transparency notice + human review + impact assessment | EU GDPR Art. 22 + Australia 2024 |\n\n## Jurisdiction-Specific Deltas\n\n### Requirements Unique to Specific Jurisdictions\n\n| Delta | Jurisdiction | Requirement | Harmonised Approach |\n|-------|-------------|-------------|-------------------|\n| Credit protection basis | Brazil | Art. 7, X — lawful basis for credit protection | Document where Brazil-specific basis is relied upon |\n| Separate consent (单独同意) | China | Five specific separate consent triggers | Implement separate consent globally where any trigger is met |\n| Pre-transfer information | Japan | Provide destination country PI protection system info before consent | Include in all cross-border consent forms globally |\n| DNC Registry check | Singapore | Mandatory check before telephone\u002FSMS marketing | Implement DNC checking in Singapore; voluntary in other jurisdictions |\n| Data localisation | China (CIIO) | CIIO must store data in PRC | Local storage for PRC data; process copies abroad |\n| Resident registration number encryption | Korea | Mandatory encryption for RRN | Encrypt all government identifiers in all jurisdictions |\n| Consent Manager | India | Registered intermediary for consent management | Integrate with consent manager in India; optional elsewhere |\n| Pseudonymisation framework | Korea \u002F Japan | Statutory pseudonymisation frameworks | Implement pseudonymisation programme meeting both PIPA and APPI standards |\n\n## Gap Identification Process\n\n### Step 1: Map Current Controls\n1. Document existing privacy controls, policies, and procedures.\n2. Map each control to the requirements of each applicable jurisdiction.\n3. Identify controls that satisfy requirements in multiple jurisdictions.\n\n### Step 2: Identify Gaps\n1. For each jurisdiction, identify requirements not met by existing controls.\n2. Classify gaps as: critical (legal non-compliance), significant (enforcement risk), or minor (best practice deficit).\n3. Prioritise gaps based on: regulatory activity in the jurisdiction, potential penalty exposure, data subject volume.\n\n### Step 3: Design Remediation\n1. Where possible, design a single harmonised control that addresses the gap across all jurisdictions.\n2. Where harmonisation is not possible (conflicting requirements), design jurisdiction-specific controls.\n3. Estimate remediation effort and timeline.\n4. Assign ownership and track implementation.\n\n## Compliance Matrix Governance\n\n| Element | Detail |\n|---------|--------|\n| Matrix owner | Chief Privacy Officer, Zenith Global Enterprises |\n| Update frequency | Quarterly for law changes; annual comprehensive review |\n| Change trigger | New jurisdiction entry, significant law amendment, enforcement action |\n| Review committee | Privacy Steering Committee (CPO, regional DPOs, Legal, IT Security) |\n| Tool | Compliance matrix maintained in GRC platform with automated law change alerts |\n",{"name":33,"license":34,"metadata":35,"description":41},"multi-jurisdiction-matrix","Apache-2.0",{"tags":36,"author":37,"domain":38,"version":39,"subdomain":40},"multi-jurisdiction, compliance-matrix, harmonised-controls, gap-analysis, jurisdiction-mapping","mukul975","privacy","1.0","global-privacy-regulations","Guides building a multi-jurisdiction privacy compliance matrix for organisations operating across multiple countries. Covers common requirements identification, jurisdiction-specific deltas, gap analysis, and harmonised control frameworks. Keywords: multi-jurisdiction, compliance matrix, harmonised controls, gap analysis, jurisdiction mapping.","main","9b2ef9eae161c00a17241d42a388571321b33e9f","app\u002Fseraph_app\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fto-questionnaire",0,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FVortex375\u002Fseraph","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FVortex375","2026-11-08 18:46:14",{"source":8,"skillName":33,"commands":50,"prompt":60,"zipAvailable":61},[51,54,57],{"tool":52,"command":53},"npx","npx skills add Vortex375\u002Fseraph --skill multi-jurisdiction-matrix",{"tool":55,"command":56},"bunx","bunx skills add Vortex375\u002Fseraph --skill multi-jurisdiction-matrix",{"tool":58,"command":59},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add Vortex375\u002Fseraph --skill multi-jurisdiction-matrix","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FVortex375\u002Fseraph\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fapp\u002Fseraph_app\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fto-questionnaire\u002FSKILL.md",true,[63,69,75,79,83],{"path":64,"resourceType":65,"resourceTypeDesc":66,"sizeBytes":67,"sourceHtmlUrl":68},"agents\u002Fopenai.yaml","REFERENCE","参考文档",166,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FVortex375\u002Fseraph\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fapp\u002Fseraph_app\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fto-questionnaire\u002Fagents\u002Fopenai.yaml",{"path":70,"resourceType":71,"resourceTypeDesc":72,"sizeBytes":73,"sourceHtmlUrl":74},"assets\u002Ftemplate.md","ASSET","资产文件",2007,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FPrivacy-Data-Protection-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fglobal-privacy-regulations-skills\u002Fskills\u002Fmulti-jurisdiction-matrix\u002Fassets\u002Ftemplate.md",{"path":76,"resourceType":65,"resourceTypeDesc":66,"sizeBytes":77,"sourceHtmlUrl":78},"references\u002Fstandards.md",3192,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FPrivacy-Data-Protection-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fglobal-privacy-regulations-skills\u002Fskills\u002Fmulti-jurisdiction-matrix\u002Freferences\u002Fstandards.md",{"path":80,"resourceType":65,"resourceTypeDesc":66,"sizeBytes":81,"sourceHtmlUrl":82},"references\u002Fworkflows.md",3489,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FPrivacy-Data-Protection-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fglobal-privacy-regulations-skills\u002Fskills\u002Fmulti-jurisdiction-matrix\u002Freferences\u002Fworkflows.md",{"path":84,"resourceType":85,"resourceTypeDesc":86,"sizeBytes":87,"sourceHtmlUrl":88},"scripts\u002Fprocess.py","SCRIPT","脚本",7772,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FPrivacy-Data-Protection-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fglobal-privacy-regulations-skills\u002Fskills\u002Fmulti-jurisdiction-matrix\u002Fscripts\u002Fprocess.py",[90,113,137,160,176,195],{"skillNo":91,"name":92,"nameZh":6,"description":93,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":94,"categories":95,"keywords":106,"publishedAt":28},"01M6BYS1QVW7F887EXS5RR34TA","writing-for-agents","Writing documents for agents. Use when creating or editing skills, or modifying AGENTS.md or CLAUDE.md.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FVortex375\u002Fseraph\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fapp\u002Fseraph_app\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fwriting-for-agents\u002FSKILL.md",[96,101],{"categoryNo":97,"categoryName":98,"taxonomyType":99,"taxonomyTypeDesc":100},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000018","写作与文案","SCENARIO","使用场景",{"categoryNo":102,"categoryName":103,"taxonomyType":104,"taxonomyTypeDesc":105},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000036","内容创作者","PROFESSION","适用职业",[107,26,108,109,110,111,112],"writing","writing for agents","when","use","editing","documents",{"skillNo":114,"name":115,"nameZh":6,"description":116,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":117,"categories":118,"keywords":119,"publishedAt":28},"01M6BYRZNREK0C7V6Y43AKDJWW","wizard","Generate an interactive bash wizard that walks a human through steps only they can perform. Use when provisioning infrastructure, setting up credentials or CI secrets, walking an unfamiliar third-party dashboard, or running a one-off migration or cutover. Don't invoke this for steps the agent can perform itself.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FVortex375\u002Fseraph\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fapp\u002Fseraph_app\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fwizard\u002FSKILL.md",[],[115,120,121,122,123,124,25,125,109,126,127,26,128,129,130,131,132,133,110,134,135,136],"provisioning","ci","generate","infrastructure","dashboard","running","invoke","party","credentials","human","provisioning infrastructure","migration","up","only","interactive","Bash","secrets",{"skillNo":138,"name":139,"nameZh":6,"description":140,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":141,"categories":142,"keywords":143,"publishedAt":28},"01M6BYRY92S448X31PTG25TCJC","wayfinder","Plan a huge chunk of work (more than one agent session can hold) as a shared map of decision tickets on your issue tracker, and resolve them one at a time until the way to the destination is clear.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FVortex375\u002Fseraph\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fapp\u002Fseraph_app\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fwayfinder\u002FSKILL.md",[],[139,144,145,146,25,147,24,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,21,157,158,159],"at","map","agent session","time","shared","more","tickets","as","clear","issue","session","one at a time","work","plan","chunk","tracker",{"skillNo":161,"name":162,"nameZh":6,"description":163,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":164,"categories":165,"keywords":166,"publishedAt":28},"01M6BYRWXMYWB6PD7E9PAD44M4","wait-what","Stop. That last message did not land: re-pitch it.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FVortex375\u002Fseraph\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fapp\u002Fseraph_app\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fwait-what\u002FSKILL.md",[],[167,168,169,24,170,171,172,173,174,175],"wait what","wait","re","last","it","pitch","message","stop","land",{"skillNo":177,"name":178,"nameZh":6,"description":179,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":180,"categories":181,"keywords":182,"publishedAt":28},"01M6BYRTS6JNDYB7BZVAWK7JJ9","triage","Move issues and external PRs through a state machine of triage roles, categorise, verify, grill if needed, and write agent-ready briefs.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FVortex375\u002Fseraph\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fapp\u002Fseraph_app\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Ftriage\u002FSKILL.md",[],[178,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,24,194],"machine","roles","grill","ready","write","verify","issues","state","move","prs","state machine","briefs",{"skillNo":196,"name":197,"nameZh":6,"description":198,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":199,"categories":200,"keywords":201,"publishedAt":28},"01M6BYRRRCDHNXH2YBDTYJPG36","to-tickets","Break a plan, spec, or the current conversation into a set of tracer-bullet tickets, each declaring its blocking edges, published to the configured tracker (edges as text in one file per ticket locally, or native blocking links on a real tracker).","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FVortex375\u002Fseraph\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fapp\u002Fseraph_app\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fto-tickets\u002FSKILL.md",[],[202,150,203,204,205,24,206,207,151,208,159,209,157,210,211],"to tickets","spec","links","break","native","ticket","conversation","text","SET","file"]