/cs:ai-act-readiness <system> — EU AI Act 6-question forcing interrogation. Use during AI-system intake, before EU deployment, or during annual compliance refresh as Article 113 obligations phase in (2025-02-02 / 2025-08-02 / 2026-08-02 / 2027-08-02).
cd ~/.claude/skills
git clone https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills.git claude-skills mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills/ai-act-readiness
curl -fsSL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills/HEAD/.gemini/skills/ai-act-readiness/SKILL.md \
-o ~/.claude/skills/ai-act-readiness/SKILL.md Command: /cs:ai-act-readiness <system>
The EU AI Act compliance operator pressure-tests any AI system before EU deployment. Six Article-cited questions before any EU placement, conformity assessment, or annual compliance refresh.
Penalty: up to 35M EUR or 7% worldwide turnover.
ai_system_risk_classifier.pyAnnex III triggers high-risk; Article 6(3) carve-out conditional.
ai_system_risk_classifier.pyBiometrics → Module H (notified body) by default; others → Module A if harmonised standards applied.
conformity_assessment_planner.pyProvider obligations are heaviest; substantial modification turns deployer into provider.
ai_act_obligation_tracker.pyIn force 2 Aug 2025.
GPAI has parallel track; systemic risk above 10^25 FLOPs.
# 1. Risk classification
python ra-qm-team/skills/eu-ai-act-specialist/scripts/ai_system_risk_classifier.py systems.json
# 2. If high-risk: conformity assessment
python ra-qm-team/skills/eu-ai-act-specialist/scripts/conformity_assessment_planner.py system.json
# 3. Per-role obligation matrix
python ra-qm-team/skills/eu-ai-act-specialist/scripts/ai_act_obligation_tracker.py roles.json
# 4. Cross-framework reuse (ISO 42001 etc.)
python ../../skills/compliance-os/scripts/cross_framework_mapper.py program.json
# EU AI Act Readiness: <system>
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Article Citations:** Every verdict below cites the specific Article.
## The Decision Being Made
[classify | conformity-route | obligation-scope | annual-refresh]
## Risk Classification
- Tier: prohibited | high_risk | limited_risk | minimal_risk
- Citation: Article X(Y) + Annex Z if applicable
- Rationale: <Article-cited rationale>
- GPAI: yes/no
- Systemic-risk GPAI: yes/no (per Article 51 10^25 FLOPs threshold)
## Conformity Assessment (if high-risk)
- Module: A | A_with_caveats | H | sectoral
- Citation: Article 43 + Annex VI/VII
- Notified body required: yes | no | optional
- Annex IV pack status: complete | in-progress | not-started
## Obligation Matrix
- Total obligations: N
- By deadline phase: 2025-02-02=A, 2025-08-02=B, 2026-08-02=C, 2027-08-02=D
- Highest-priority unmet obligation: <Article + description>
## Transparency (Article 50)
- 50(1) interaction disclosure: yes | no
- 50(2) synthetic content marking: yes | no | NA
- 50(3) emotion recognition disclosure: yes | no | NA
- 50(4) deepfake disclosure: yes | no | NA
## Cross-Framework Reuse
- ISO 42001 evidence applicable to Article 17 QMS: yes/no
- ISO 27001 evidence applicable to Article 15 cybersecurity: yes/no
- GDPR DPIA usable for Article 27 FRIA: yes/no
## Verdict
🟢 READY-FOR-EU | 🟡 GAPS-IDENTIFIED | 🔴 NOT-READY | 🚫 PROHIBITED
## Top 3 Actions
[3 concrete next steps with owner + Article-tied deadline]
## Legal Review Required
[Article-level ambiguities flagged for outside counsel: novel cases, GPAI threshold disputes, Article 5 boundary cases, Article 25 substantial-modification questions]
/cs:compliance-readiness — for multi-framework view (combine with ISO 42001 + GDPR)/cs:aims-audit — for ISO 42001 deep-dive/cs:caio-review — for executive AI strategy decisions/cs:gc-review — for novel-case legal review (GPAI threshold, Article 5 boundary, substantial-modification)/cs:decide — to log the verdict/cs:freeze 30 — on EU launch commitments (regulatory exposure)cs-ai-act-complianceeu-ai-act-specialist../../skills/compliance-os/, ../aims-audit/, ../compliance-readiness/, ../../../ra-qm-team/skills/gdpr-dsgvo-expert/Version: 1.0.0
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
Use when implementation is complete, all tests pass, and you need to decide how to integrate the work - guides completion of development work by presenting structured options for merge, PR, or cleanup
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
Use when starting feature work that needs isolation from current workspace or before executing implementation plans - ensures an isolated workspace exists via native tools or git worktree fallback
Use when starting any conversation - establishes how to find and use skills, requiring skill invocation before ANY response including clarifying questions