compliance-export
Skill0 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Produce compliance evidence from Tuteliq. Export account data, pull audit logs and receipts, manage consent records, log and track breaches, and answer GDPR subject requests. Use when asked to prepare a KOSA, DSA, COPPA or GDPR evidence pack, respond to a data subject access or erasure request, or show an auditor what was detected and what was done about it.
In this repository2 other files it gives its agents.
- grooming-auditSkill
- incident-reviewSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈0
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 57
If the account uses BYOK, exported fields arrive as hybrid envelopes (_e2e_envelope_fields names them) and must be decrypted client-side …
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Producing compliance evidence
Two different asks get called "compliance export", and they need different tools:
- "Show the regulator our moderation worked": detection volumes, review decisions, audit receipts
- "A user invoked their GDPR rights": export, rectify or erase that person's data
Evidence that moderation worked
get_incidents_overview and get_incident_trends give the volumes: what was
detected, at what severity, over what period. list_incidents filtered by
status shows the disposition: how much was confirmed, dismissed, escalated.
That combination answers the question a DSA or KOSA reviewer actually asks: did you detect, and did you act?
get_audit_logs covers account-level actions. get_audit_receipt returns a
signed receipt for a specific request, and that is the artefact to cite when an
auditor wants proof a particular assessment happened, rather than a screenshot.
GDPR subject requests
export_account_data: Article 20, portability. Returns the account's data as JSON.delete_account_data: Article 17, erasure.rectify_data: Article 16, correction.record_consent,get_consent_status,withdraw_consent: the consent ledger.
Set expectations correctly on erasure: Tuteliq stores no user content in the first place. Messages, images, documents, audio and biometrics are processed in memory and never persisted, raw or derived. What exists is the abstracted detection record: category labels, severity, confidence, timestamps. An erasure request removes those records; it cannot remove message text, because none was ever kept.
That is usually a stronger answer than a completed deletion, and worth stating plainly in the response.
Breach handling
log_breach, list_breaches, get_breach and update_breach_status maintain
the breach register. GDPR Article 33 gives 72 hours to notify a supervisory
authority, so log first with what you know and update the record as the picture
firms up rather than waiting for certainty.
Encryption posture
If the account uses BYOK, exported fields arrive as hybrid envelopes
(_e2e_envelope_fields names them) and must be decrypted client-side with the
customer's private key. register_encryption_key, get_encryption_key and
revoke_encryption_key manage those keys.
Tuteliq cannot decrypt BYOK fields. When preparing an export for a third party, either decrypt client-side first or state clearly that the envelopes require the customer's key; handing over ciphertext without explanation fails the request.
Writing the pack
Lead with what was detected and what was done, in that order, with volumes and disposition. Cite audit receipts for specific claims. Describe categories and severities, never message content; quoting user text into a compliance document undermines the zero-retention position the rest of the pack rests on.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

