Update to EULEX.AI

{
  "description": "Turn retrieved legal provisions into a cited research checklist of obligations, applicability conditions, deadlines and potential evidence, including GDPR, NIS2 and the AI Act. Use for implementation planning or a gap analysis against information the user supplies. Missing facts remain questions; this does not certify compliance.",
  "included_files": [
    {
      "relative_path": "agents/openai.yaml",
      "size_in_bytes": 2319
    }
  ],
  "name": "compliance-checklist",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: compliance-checklist\ndescription: Turn retrieved legal provisions into a cited research checklist of obligations, applicability conditions, deadlines and potential evidence, including GDPR, NIS2 and the AI Act. Use for implementation planning or a gap analysis against information the user supplies. Missing facts remain questions; this does not certify compliance.\nlicense: Proprietary\nmetadata:\n  author: Augment Ltd\n  version: \"1.3.14\"\n  compatibility: Requires the connected and authorised EULEX.AI MCP server.\n---\n\n# Build an evidence-based compliance checklist\n\n1. Establish activity, sector, jurisdiction, entity size/role and the relevant\n   date. Mark missing applicability facts rather than assuming the broadest rule.\n2. Identify the governing act with `get_regulation` or `resolve`, then retrieve\n   definitions, scope, operative obligations, exceptions and application dates.\n   Use `get_structure` for navigation. Confirm capabilities with `list_scopes`.\n3. For directives, retrieve reported national measures with `eu_transposition`\n   and read the operative national law when supported. Reporting a measure is\n   not proof of correct implementation. Distinguish entry into force, application\n   date, transposition deadline and a user's internal target date.\n4. Turn only evidenced obligations into checklist rows: obligation, applicability\n   condition, action, evidence to retain, legal deadline, article/version/source.\n   Suggested owner and internal priority are planning suggestions, not legal facts.\n5. For a gap analysis, compare only with user-provided evidence. Label rows\n   evidenced, partially evidenced, not evidenced or not assessed; missing evidence\n   does not prove non-compliance. Include open questions and retrieval gaps.\n\nDo not provide an overall compliant/non-compliant certification. Do not invent\npenalties or deadlines, and do not silently replace historical law with current\nwording. Keep user confidential details out of retrieval queries.\n"
}