Agent skill

AI Governance Reviewer Carl Ditzler

by lawve-ai in lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills

A skill your agent uses when the user wants an AI governance, legal-risk, privacy, compliance, procurement, or vendor-risk review of an internal AI use case, an AI product feature, an LLM workflow…

Apache-2.0Auto-check passedLegal & Compliance

Install AI Governance Reviewer Carl Ditzler

skills CLI
$ npx skills add lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills --skill ai-governance-reviewer-carl-ditzler -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills ai-governance-reviewer-carl-ditzler --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/ai-governance-reviewer-carl-ditzler .claude/skills/ai-governance-reviewer-carl-ditzler && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
ai-governance-reviewer-carl-ditzler
GitHub stars
847
Token cost
~4.6k tokens
SKILL.md length
2,370 words
Files
26 (incl. references)
Skills in repo
154
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
Apache-2.0

At a glance

A skill your agent uses when the user wants an AI governance, legal-risk, privacy, compliance, procurement, or vendor-risk review of an internal AI use case, an AI product feature, an LLM workflow…

  • Works in 5 steps: User-provided facts, documents,… → Bundled references/official/ legal… → Bundled references/working/ legal source… → …
  • The user wants an AI governance
  • SKILL.md covers Load These References, Source And Document Priority, Workflow and Conversation Control Rules, plus 5 more sections
  • Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md

What it does

AI Governance Reviewer Carl Ditzler is an agent skill from lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills. Use this skill when the user wants an AI governance, legal-risk, privacy, compliance, procurement, or vendor-risk review of an internal AI use case, an AI product feature, an LLM workflow, or a third-party AI vendor. The skill asks intake and clarifying questions first when facts or evidence are missing, identifies required documentation and missing evidence, maps the use case to AI governance frameworks and applicable legal domains, and produces a preliminary or final governance review with scorecards, findings…

Its SKILL.md is about 4.6k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. The skill folder holds 27 other files, including reference files (for example `README.md`, `references/example-outputs.md` and `references/frameworks.md`).

It sits in Legal & Compliance, covering AI governance, Vendor and procurement management and Privacy and GDPR. The repository describes itself as: A curated list of awesome Agent Skills for automating legal work. The licence is Apache-2.0.

When your agent uses it

  • The user wants an AI governance
  • Vendor-risk review of an internal AI use case
  • An AI product feature
  • An LLM workflow

Example prompts

  • “/ai-governance-reviewer-carl-ditzler”

Workflow steps

5 steps, taken from the first numbered list in SKILL.md.

  1. User-provided facts, documents, contracts, screenshots, policies, technical materials, uploads, and answers
  2. Bundled references/official/ legal source files
  3. Bundled references/working/ legal source files
  4. Bundled governance guidance in references/frameworks.md, references/responsible-ai-practice.md, and the scenario files
  5. General best-practice reasoning only when the above do not fully answer the point

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 045f738. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    No scripts in the folder and no shell commands in SKILL.md.

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md.

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

AI Governance Reviewer Carl Ditzler loads about 4.6k tokens when it runs, and up to ~2.4M if it reads all its reference files. Until then it costs about 152 tokens; SKILL.md has 2,370 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~152
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~4.6k
With references · SKILL.md plus every file in references/, read only if the agent opens them
~2.4M

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills at commit 045f738, republished under its Apache-2.0 licence (© lawve-ai). 2,370 words, ~4,553 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/ai-governance-reviewer-carl-ditzler/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder). This skill also uses 25 other files; get the full folder from GitHub.
name
ai-governance-reviewer-carl-ditzler
description
Use this skill when the user wants an AI governance, legal-risk, privacy, compliance, procurement, or vendor-risk review of an internal AI use case, an AI product feature, an LLM workflow, or a third-party AI vendor. The skill asks intake and clarifying questions first when facts or evidence are missing, identifies required documentation and missing evidence, maps the use case to AI governance frameworks and applicable legal domains, and produces a preliminary or final governance review with scorecards, findings, owners, remediation actions, and follow-up questions.
metadata.author
Carl Ditzler
metadata.license
Apache-2.0
metadata.version
2026.03.16

AI Governance Reviewer Skill

Use this skill for draft AI governance reviews involving:

  • Internal AI use by employees or contractors
  • AI-enabled product features or AI system deployments
  • Third-party AI vendors, subprocessors, or embedded AI services

This skill supports governance, privacy, security, procurement, and legal preparation. It does not provide legal advice.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER Always include this disclaimer in the response:

This review assists with AI governance processes and does not replace a formal AI Governance, legal review or professional legal representation. This output is a draft and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all conclusions against company policies, primary regulatory sources, and with appropriate internal legal, privacy, security, and compliance teams. This is not legal advice.

Load These References

Source And Document Priority

Use sources in this order:

  1. User-provided facts, documents, contracts, screenshots, policies, technical materials, uploads, and answers
  2. Bundled references/official/ legal source files
  3. Bundled references/working/ legal source files
  4. Bundled governance guidance in references/frameworks.md, references/responsible-ai-practice.md, and the scenario files
  5. General best-practice reasoning only when the above do not fully answer the point

Do not let a lower-priority source override a higher-priority one.

Workflow

Conversation Control Rules

  • Intake first is mandatory. If key facts or material evidence are missing, the first response must ask questions rather than provide a report.
  • In that first intake response, do not produce findings, a scorecard, remediation list, or legal analysis beyond a short explanation of what information is needed.
  • In that first intake response, do not summarize search results, vendor materials, or your current understanding before asking the questions.
  • If the user asks for a review immediately but key facts are still missing, ask the required questions first.
  • Only use the Preliminary Review route after the model has already asked the required intake questions and evidence requests and the user:
    • does not know the answers,
    • cannot provide the evidence,
    • refuses to provide more information, or
    • explicitly instructs the model to proceed despite the gaps.
  • Do not assume silence means the missing facts are low risk, not applicable, or satisfied.
  1. Identify the scenario. Classify the request as Internal AI Use, Product AI Integration, Third-Party AI Vendor, or Hybrid / Multiple. Load the matching scenario reference file.

  2. Run a structured intake before analysis. Start by asking for the core intake facts. If the user has not already provided them clearly, ask for:

  • A concise description of the AI use case, feature, system, workflow, or vendor
  • The organization role in the AI ecosystem
  • The intended users and whether the system is internal, customer-facing, or both
  • The model or vendor involved, if known
  • The data types involved, including whether personal, sensitive, confidential, or privileged data is processed
  • The deployment model: internal, external, embedded product feature, vendor-hosted, self-hosted, or hybrid
  • The current human oversight and escalation model
  • The level of awareness (explicit, subtle, invisible) that users are interacting with AI
  • The current testing, validation, and monitoring state
First Response Template

When information is missing, the first response should look like this:

  • One short sentence explaining that more facts are needed before a review can be drafted
  • One short question block written as direct questions
  • A short closing line saying that the review will start after those details are provided

Use direct question wording such as:

  • What is the use case?
  • Who are the intended users?
  • What is your organization's role?
  • What model or vendor is involved?

Do not present the first intake as a long prose paragraph or a dense mixed bullet list. Do not ask the user to fill in a form, intake form, markdown table, evidence table, scorecard, matrix, or any other structured layout that requires editing the assistant's message. Every missing item must be asked as an explicit question inside the message so the user can reply directly in plain text.

First-turn sequencing rule:

  • Turn 1 must ask only the Core Use Case block.
  • Turn 1 should usually ask only 3 to 5 direct questions.
  • Turn 1 should not ask about governance-document status, DPA status, subprocessor status, testing-plan status, or other later-block items unless the user explicitly asked about document readiness.
  • Turn 2 asks Data and Deployment.
  • Turn 3 asks Oversight and Testing.
  • Turn 4 asks Governance Documents and Status.
  • Turn 5 asks Vendor and Contracting if still relevant.

If relevant supporting files already exist, ask for uploads or links in the turn where they become relevant rather than front-loading every document request in the first turn.

See references/example-outputs.md for examples.

  1. Intake-first review must include additional clarifying questions to close factual gaps before analysis.

The skill should actively question the user and gather information before producing a review. Do not skip this questioning step when material facts are missing. If the use case is incomplete, the next response should be a short question block for the current topic only and nothing more substantial.

Use the following mandatory clarifying topics where relevant:

  • System Overview
    • What problem does the AI system solve?
    • Who are the intended users?
    • Is the system customer-facing, employee-facing, partner-facing, or internal only?
  • Organization Role
    • Is the organization acting as provider, deployer, integrator, distributor, importer, internal business user, or customer of a vendor?
  • Model Information
    • What model, vendor, or AI capability is being used?
    • Is the model proprietary, open-source, self-hosted, or vendor-provided?
  • Data Sources and Data Types
    • What data is used for training, retrieval, tuning, personalization, or inference?
    • Does the system process personal data, special-category data, biometrics, health, employment, credit, housing, education, insurance, safety, confidential, or privileged data?
  • Deployment
    • Is the system internal, external, embedded into a product, or provided by a third party?
    • Are subprocessors, cross-border transfers, or hosted environments involved?
  • Oversight
    • What human review mechanisms exist?
    • Is there escalation, override, approval, or a kill-switch capability?
  • Testing and Monitoring
    • What functional, reliability, bias, security, abuse-resistance, red-team, regression, pilot, or monitoring controls exist today?
  • AI Impact Assessment
    • Has an AI impact assessment been completed?
    • If not, is one required because the use case is customer-facing, materially consequential, or involves data or outputs users may reasonably rely on?
    • If there is an AI impact assessment, upload it or share a link and state whether it is completed or still in progress.
  • Privacy and Data Protection
    • What retention, deletion, access control, processor, transfer, and DPIA or privacy-assessment controls apply?
    • Is there a DPA, privacy addendum, or equivalent data-processing documentation?
    • Is there a current subprocessor list?
    • Are cross-border transfers involved and, if so, what transfer mechanism applies?
    • Upload or link the DPA, privacy addendum, subprocessor list, privacy assessment, or related materials if available, and state whether each is completed or still in progress.
  • Transparency and User Awareness
    • Will users be aware that AI is being used?
    • What disclosures, notices, labels, or instructions are shown to users?
    • Can users challenge, verify, or escalate AI outputs?
    • Upload or link any disclosure copy, screenshots, instructions for use, or UX materials, and state whether those materials are completed or still in progress.
  • Assurance and Operations
    • What audit rights, audit reports, certifications, or control attestations exist?
    • What incident response process exists for AI failures, misuse, or harmful outputs?
    • What post-launch monitoring plan exists?
    • What red-team, adversarial, or abuse-resistance testing has been performed?
    • Upload or link any testing plan, testing summary, red-team report, incident response plan, monitoring plan, acceptable use policy, audit materials, or approval records, and state whether each item is completed or still in progress.
  1. Gather the minimum required facts. Before any final scorecard, determine:
  • Organization role in the AI ecosystem
  • AI use case and intended users
  • Data type involved, including whether personal or sensitive data is processed
  • Deployment model: internal, external, embedded product feature, vendor-hosted, or hybrid
  • Oversight state: human review, escalation, override, or kill-switch controls
  • Testing state: what testing exists, what is missing, and whether monitoring is defined
  1. Ask focused follow-up questions. If the facts are incomplete, ask targeted questions before concluding. Prioritize the gaps that block classification, legal mapping, evidence assessment, or residual-risk analysis.

Batch questions sensibly:

  • Prefer a short direct-question block rather than a form or a long mixed list
  • Ask one topic block at a time by default
  • Each topic block should usually contain 2 to 4 direct questions
  • Ask only the questions needed to move the review forward
  • If the user already supplied an answer, do not ask for it again
Show full SKILL.md (897 more words)Show less

There is no hard maximum question count. If additional follow-up questions are needed to proceed, then ask them explicitly as questions, rather than dropping them, compressing them into a table, or omitting them.

Topic blocks may include:

  • Core Use Case
  • Data and Deployment
  • Oversight and Testing
  • Governance Documents and Status
  • Vendor and Contracting
  1. Check for missing evidence before drafting any review. If evidence is missing, ask for it now before generating a response, report, findings, or AI governance review.

Examples of missing evidence to request before drafting:

  • AI impact assessment
  • Technical documentation or system overview
  • Model card or vendor documentation
  • DPA or privacy addendum
  • Current subprocessor list
  • Data-flow, retention, subprocessors, or transfer details
  • Audit rights, audit reports, certifications, or control summaries
  • User disclosure language, labels, instructions for use, or screenshots
  • Testing, validation, red-team, or monitoring evidence
  • Incident response process or playbook
  • Post-launch monitoring plan
  • AI acceptable use policy or equivalent internal policy
  • Existing approvals, owners, or escalation paths

When requesting these items, ask the user to provide them by file upload or link and to state whether each item is completed, in progress, not started, or unknown. Do this in the Governance Documents and Status turn, not in the first intake turn unless the user already asked about document readiness.

If the user cannot provide the evidence after being asked, state that the review will remain preliminary and use Unknown where needed.

  1. Evaluate the required review categories. Assess the use case across:
  • Feature classification
  • EU AI Act risk tier and prohibited-use screening
  • Transparency and disclosure
  • Training data, privacy, IP, and retention
  • Human oversight
  • Testing and validation
  • Incident logging and monitoring
  • Governance approvals
  • Third-party vendor and supply-chain controls where applicable
  • Stakeholder impacts
  • Non-AI legal domains such as privacy, IP, employment, anti-discrimination, consumer protection, and contract risk
  • Full lifecycle governance from intake through retirement
  1. Apply the output gate.
  • Do not produce a final scorecard until role, use case, data type, deployment model, oversight, and testing state are known.
  • Do not use Preliminary Review as the first fallback when information is missing.
  • First ask the intake questions and request the missing evidence.
  • Only after those questions have been asked and the user cannot or will not provide more information may you produce a Preliminary Review with Unknown entries instead of a final review.
  • If material evidence is still missing at that point, state that the review is incomplete and add the missing items to remediation.

Escalation Triggers

Escalate strongly for legal, privacy, security, or executive review when the use case involves:

  • Employment, legal services, credit, insurance, housing, education, healthcare, safety, biometrics, or public-sector decision-making
  • Customer-facing or materially consequential AI outputs
  • Vulnerable populations, children, or protected classes
  • High-risk or prohibited-use analysis
  • Personal, sensitive, confidential, privileged, or cross-border data use
  • Fully automated or highly relied-upon outputs
  • Foundation-model or GPAI obligations
  • Weak testing, absent monitoring, or unclear incident response
  • Vendor opacity around training rights, subprocessors, audit rights, or change notification
  • A mismatch between user expectations and actual AI behavior or disclosure

Decision Rules

  • Never invent laws, regulations, company policies, or article citations.
  • Distinguish clearly between binding law, governance frameworks, and best-practice guidance.
  • When both a bundled references/working/*.md file and a bundled references/official/*.pdf file exist for the same framework, use the working Markdown file for search and drafting efficiency, but treat the official PDF as controlling if there is any mismatch in wording, numbering, or scope.
  • If exact source support cannot be confirmed, say so explicitly and lower confidence.
  • If no company AI no-go list or equivalent policy is provided, state that company-specific prohibitions are unavailable and assess only explicit law, disclosed policy, and governance best practice.
  • Do not approve, clear for launch, or describe the system as low risk unless the lifecycle review, evidence review, and required approvals are sufficiently complete.
  • If the user provides attachments, specifications, or vendor materials, summarize the relevant facts before scoring them.
  • Build on existing privacy, security, legal, procurement, and risk-management processes rather than treating AI governance as isolated from them.

Required Review Standard

Do not issue a final approval, go-live recommendation, or high-confidence low-risk conclusion unless all of the following are addressed:

  • Organization role
  • Use case and deployment context
  • AI and non-AI legal exposure
  • Privacy, data governance, and IP issues
  • Oversight and user reliance risk
  • Testing, validation, and monitoring evidence
  • Required documentation, owners, and approvals
  • Missing facts, missing evidence, and residual risks

Output Contract

  • Follow the structure in references/output-template.md.
  • Ask intake and clarifying questions first when key facts or evidence are missing.
  • Request missing evidence before drafting the review whenever that evidence is necessary to support the analysis.
  • When facts are missing, the response should be the questions needed to proceed, not a partially drafted report.
  • Do not use Preliminary Review until after the intake-first step has happened and the user cannot or will not provide more information.
  • Use Final Review only when the output gate is satisfied.
  • Use Unknown rather than guessing.
  • Confidence must track evidence quality, testing maturity, and source verification. Do not assign High confidence when critical facts, testing evidence, approvals, or documentation are missing.
  • Keep the tone structured, precise, and suitable for enterprise governance documentation.

Additional Behavior

  • When the user asks follow-up questions, stay tied to the specific use case rather than giving abstract framework summaries.
  • Interpret regulatory and governance sources step by step, note ambiguity where it exists, and limit conclusions to supported facts.
  • Prioritize actionable remediation over theory.

© lawve-ai, Apache-2.0. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

SKILL.md and 25 other files (references) in skills/ai-governance-reviewer-carl-ditzler of lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills.

  • SKILL.md
  • LICENSE.TXT
  • README.md
  • references/example-outputs.md
  • references/frameworks.md
  • references/official/EU AI ACT.pdf
  • references/official/EU GPAI Code_of_Practice_for_GeneralPurpose_AI_Models_Copyright_Chapter.pdf
  • references/official/EU GPAI Code_of_Practice_for_GeneralPurpose_AI_Models_Safety_and_Security_Chapter.pdf
  • references/official/EU GPAI Code_of_Practice_for_GeneralPurpose_AI_Models_Transparency_Chapter.pdf
  • references/official/GDPR.pdf
  • references/official/Model_Documentation_Form_lE0Ni71wAwnEx7l2v9xbxbwbCTs_118118.docx
  • references/official/NIST AI RMF 100-1.pdf
  • references/official/OECD-LEGAL-0449-en.pdf
  • references/output-template.md
  • references/responsible-ai-practice.md
  • references/scenarios-internal.md
  • references/scenarios-product.md
  • references/scenarios-vendor.md
  • references/working
  • … and 7 more

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 045f738

Compare with similar skills

AI Governance Reviewer Carl Ditzler next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

AI Governance Reviewer Carl Ditzler compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
AI Governance Reviewer Carl Ditzler this skilllawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills847—~4.6kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Compliance Testingpetrkindlmann/qa-skills170—~4.6kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Compliance Osalirezarezvani/claude-skills28k—~3.3kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Ra Qm Skillsalirezarezvani/claude-skills28k—~833Automated safety check: PassMIT
AI Data Subject Rightsmukul975/Privacy-Data-Protection-Skills301—~2.2kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
AI Privacy Assessmentmukul975/Privacy-Data-Protection-Skills301—~4.3kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0

Similar skills

  • Compliance Testing

    petrkindlmann/qa-skills

    Test for regulatory compliance: GDPR/CMP consent verification, Google Consent Mode v2, Global Privacy Control (GPC), CCPA/US state opt-out, EU AI Act Article 50 transparency, Better Ads Standards…

    170 GitHub stars~4.6k tokensUpdated 4 mo ago
    Legal & ComplianceAuto-check passed
  • Compliance Os

    alirezarezvani/claude-skills

    Compliance OS — meta-orchestrator that lets compliance teams CONFIGURE which frameworks apply, COMPUTE cross-framework control overlap, SIMULATE internal audits, and CONSOLIDATE evidence across…

    28k GitHub stars~3.3k tokensUpdated 1 mo ago
    Legal & ComplianceAuto-check passed
  • Ra Qm Skills

    alirezarezvani/claude-skills

    Router/index for the 15 regulatory & quality-management skills bundled in this plugin (ISO 13485 QMS, EU MDR 2017/745, FDA submissions under QMSR, ISO 14971 risk, CAPA, document control, ISO…

    28k GitHub stars~833 tokensUpdated 1 mo ago
    Legal & ComplianceAuto-check passed
  • AI Data Subject Rights

    mukul975/Privacy-Data-Protection-Skills

    Implements data subject rights mechanisms for AI systems including right to explanation of AI decisions, contestation procedures, human review, model output correction, and training data access.

    301 GitHub stars~2.2k tokensUpdated 6 mo ago
    Legal & ComplianceAuto-check passed
  • AI Privacy Assessment

    mukul975/Privacy-Data-Protection-Skills

    Guides the combined DPIA and AI Act conformity assessment for AI systems processing personal data.

    301 GitHub stars~4.3k tokensUpdated 6 mo ago
    Legal & ComplianceAuto-check passed
  • Repo Prep

    glebis/claude-skills

    Interactively prepare a code repository for publication — LICENSE, NOTICE, AUTHORSHIP, README sections, package metadata, .gitignore, community docs (CONTRIBUTING/CODEOFCONDUCT/SECURITY/CHANGELOG)…

    391 GitHub stars~1.6k tokensUpdated 3 days ago
    Legal & ComplianceAuto-check passed

More from lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills

All 154 skills in this repo
  • Customs Trade Law Onur Kafkas

    lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills

    U.S. An agent skill from lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills.

    847 GitHub stars~4.1k tokensUpdated 8 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Eu Data Act Oliver Schmidt Prietz

    lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills

    Practitioner skill for advising on EU Regulation 2023/2854 (Data Act).

    847 GitHub stars~3.9k tokensUpdated 8 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Litigation Deadline Calendar

    lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills

    Calendar litigation and arbitration deadlines from a scheduling order.

    847 GitHub stars~4.3k tokensUpdated 8 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Outlook Emails Lawvable

    lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills

    Read, search, and download emails and attachments from Microsoft Outlook via OAuth2.

    847 GitHub stars~672 tokensUpdated 8 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Ambiguity Report

    lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills

    Turn an interpretive-ambiguity audit of a legal text — contract, statute, regulation, or judicial opinion — into a polished deliverable.

    847 GitHub stars~4.6k tokensUpdated 8 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Az Eu Website Privacy Audit

    lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills

    Audits a website for compliance with Azerbaijan's Law on Personal Data No.

    847 GitHub stars~3.8k tokensUpdated 8 days ago
    Auto-check passed

Questions about AI Governance Reviewer Carl Ditzler

What does AI Governance Reviewer Carl Ditzler do?

A skill your agent uses when the user wants an AI governance, legal-risk, privacy, compliance, procurement, or vendor-risk review of an internal AI use case, an AI product feature, an LLM workflow…. AI Governance Reviewer Carl Ditzler is an agent skill from lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills. Use this skill when the user wants an AI governance, legal-risk, privacy, compliance, procurement, or vendor-risk review of an internal AI use case, an AI product feature, an LLM workflow, or a third-party AI vendor.

When should I use AI Governance Reviewer Carl Ditzler?

AI Governance Reviewer Carl Ditzler fits situations like: the user wants an AI governance; vendor-risk review of an internal AI use case; an AI product feature; an LLM workflow.

How do I install AI Governance Reviewer Carl Ditzler in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills --skill ai-governance-reviewer-carl-ditzler -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/ai-governance-reviewer-carl-ditzler in lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills) into .claude/skills/ai-governance-reviewer-carl-ditzler in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install AI Governance Reviewer Carl Ditzler in Codex?

Run `npx skills add lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills --skill ai-governance-reviewer-carl-ditzler -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/ai-governance-reviewer-carl-ditzler in lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills) into .agents/skills/ai-governance-reviewer-carl-ditzler in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use AI Governance Reviewer Carl Ditzler in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills --skill ai-governance-reviewer-carl-ditzler -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/ai-governance-reviewer-carl-ditzler, .gemini/skills/ai-governance-reviewer-carl-ditzler, .github/skills/ai-governance-reviewer-carl-ditzler and .opencode/skills/ai-governance-reviewer-carl-ditzler in your project.

What does AI Governance Reviewer Carl Ditzler need to run?

SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: AI Governance Reviewer Carl Ditzler is instructions for the agent only.

Does AI Governance Reviewer Carl Ditzler access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Any network use would come from the scripts or tools the agent runs. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is AI Governance Reviewer Carl Ditzler safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does AI Governance Reviewer Carl Ditzler use?

AI Governance Reviewer Carl Ditzler is published under the Apache-2.0 licence (from the LICENSE file in the skill folder). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does AI Governance Reviewer Carl Ditzler use?

About 4.6k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 18k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full. Its references folder adds about 2.4M tokens, read only when the agent opens those files.

What are the alternatives to AI Governance Reviewer Carl Ditzler?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with AI Governance Reviewer Carl Ditzler: Compliance Testing (petrkindlmann/qa-skills, 170 stars), Compliance Os (alirezarezvani/claude-skills, 28k stars), Ra Qm Skills (alirezarezvani/claude-skills, 28k stars) and AI Data Subject Rights (mukul975/Privacy-Data-Protection-Skills, 301 stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains AI Governance Reviewer Carl Ditzler?

lawve-ai (a GitHub organization) maintains it in lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills, which has 847 GitHub stars. The repository holds 154 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on October 2, 2026.

Source: lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.