mcpbeat

Privacy Policy Stephane Boghossian

lawve-ai/privacy-policy-stephane-boghossian

A zero-hallucination privacy-policy generator that takes anyone — non-lawyer founder to lawyer — from a guided intake to a publishable, jurisdiction-aware privacy policy. Jurisdiction-first: it detects which laws apply from where your users are, then drafts only the required clauses — GDPR/EU + UK, US (CCPA/CPRA, ~20 state laws, COPPA, sector overlays), and global/MENA (LGPD, Quebec Law 25, India DPDP, China PIPL, UAE/DIFC, Saudi PDPL), plus app-store, cookies, and AI/EU AI Act disclosures. Its rule: state only what you confirm; never invent a statute, citation, fine, or date — every claim is source-cited and QA-gated. Not legal advice.

28k tokens
context cost
the whole folder, loaded on every use
11
files
instructions only
0
copies elsewhere
how many repositories repackaged it
616
stars on the repo
on the repository, not the skill itself

Install

one command, takes just this skill from the repository
npx skills add https://github.com/lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills --skill privacy-policy-stephane-boghossian

What comes with it

103 034 bytes besides the instruction
README.md
assets/template-privacy-policy.md
references/edge-cases-failure-modes-qa.md
references/intake-questionnaire.md
references/jurisdictions-eu-uk.md
references/jurisdictions-global-mena.md
references/jurisdictions-us.md
references/platform-cookies-ai.md
references/sector-and-special-products.md
references/structure-clauses-and-craft.md

The instruction itself

12 sections, as written by the author

Privacy Policy Generator

Generate a bulletproof, jurisdiction-aware privacy policy for any business or product, usable by a

non-lawyer founder and trusted by a lawyer. The whole point of this skill is **correctness without

hallucination**: a fabricated statutory citation or a clause that doesn't match the user's real practices

is worse than no policy at all.

⚖️ The prime directive (read this first, never break it)

  • State ONLY what the user confirms they actually do. A privacy policy is a set of *enforceable

representations* (FTC §5; see the OkCupid/Match 2026 and Gateway Learning cases in the reference pack).

Saying more than is true is the #1 legal failure. Never default-in a flattering or risk-adding clause.

  • Never invent law. Do not generate a statute/section number, a fine amount, an effective date, or a

"the law requires X" claim unless it traces to the bundled reference pack (references/) or a live

legal-data-hunter lookup. If you're unsure of a specific, name the law in plain terms ("California's

CCPA/CPRA," "the EU GDPR") and describe the *right* functionally — or omit it. Uncertain → omit or mark

[VERIFY], never guess.

  • Confirm-don't-assume. A clause renders only if a confirming intake answer exists. Smart defaults are

allowed ONLY for protective/negative clauses (no children, no selling, standard security framing, today's

date, strictest-common-denominator). Anything unanswered → a visible [GAP — confirm before publishing]

marker, never a guess.

  • This is not legal advice. Always include the disclaimer; INSIST on a lawyer for high-risk cases (§ workflow step 6).

Workflow

Step 1 — Pick the mode

Ask (or infer): QUICK (non-lawyer: only the must-ask questions, batched, smart defaults pre-filled, ~10

answers) or EXPERT (lawyer/thorough: full questions, clause-level control, citations, full reconciliation).

→ Read references/intake-questionnaire.md for both flows.

Step 2 — Compute the applicable-law set FIRST (jurisdiction-first)

Ask intake Groups 0–2 (product type → business identity → where users are located). Location is the

law-selector. If "international / unknown," apply the strictest-common-denominator (GDPR + CCPA + COPPA).

This ordering is what prevents generic boilerplate.

Step 3 — Gather practices (only the questions the selected laws require)

Work Groups 3–17 of references/intake-questionnaire.md. Batch questions; offer the smart default so the

user can accept with "yes." Flag every HARD-risk answer (children, health, biometric, AI-training, data

broker, fintech) as you go.

For each jurisdiction/topic in scope, pull the requirements from the matching reference file — never from

memory:

  • references/jurisdictions-eu-uk.md — GDPR Art 13/14 checklist, lawful bases, rights, transfers, cookies, UK/DUAA, children ages, enforcement.
  • references/jurisdictions-us.md — CCPA/CPRA contents + the two mandatory links + Notice at Collection, ~20 state laws, COPPA, GPC, ADMT, sector overlays, FTC §5.
  • references/jurisdictions-global-mena.md — Brazil, Canada/Quebec, Australia, India, China, Japan/Korea/SA/Switzerland + UAE/DIFC/ADGM/Saudi/Bahrain/Qatar/Egypt/Turkey + cross-jurisdiction synthesis.
  • references/platform-cookies-ai.md — when a policy is contractually forced; Apple/Google app-store rules; per-tool disclosures (GA, AdSense, Meta Pixel, Stripe, PayPal, Mailchimp, Cloudflare, session-recording, A/B); cookies/CMP/TCF/GPC/Consent-Mode; AI/LLM + EU AI Act Art 50 + ADM.
  • references/sector-and-special-products.md — HIPAA/HBNR/MHMDA, GLBA, FERPA/SOPIPA, BIPA/Texas CUBI, Chrome extensions, IoT SB-327, GDPR Art 32/33/34 security/breach + US breach laws.
  • Optional live grounding: if the legal-data-hunter MCP is connected (HAQQ's 230-jurisdiction tool),

use it to verify or fetch a jurisdiction-specific requirement with an inline citation — especially for a

jurisdiction not fully covered in the pack, or for the latest amendment. If it's not connected, rely on

the pack and clearly mark anything you couldn't verify.

Step 5 — Assemble the policy

Use the section order + modular clause library in references/structure-clauses-and-craft.md and the

fill-in backbone in assets/template-privacy-policy.md. Enforce the writing craft (≈8th-grade reading

level unless EXPERT/formal, ~20 words/sentence, active voice, tables for data×purpose×basis×retention,

layered TL;DR). Use the DO phrasing; never the banned phrasing. Render jurisdiction-specific sections

(e.g., "Your California rights" with the Do-Not-Sell-or-Share + Limit-Use-of-Sensitive-PI links) only for

selected laws.

Step 6 — Self-QA gate (do NOT skip)

Run the 12-point checklist in references/edge-cases-failure-modes-qa.md §3 on your own draft. In

particular:

  • Citation firewall: scan for any statute number / fine amount / effective date; each must trace to the

pack or a live lookup, else remove or genericize. Zero invented citations. If cite-guard is

available, run it here.

  • Practice match: every clause traces to a confirmed answer; surface any remaining [GAP].
  • Mandatory links / disclaimer / lawyer-flag present as triggered.

Do not present the policy as "ready" if any check fails — present it with the failures surfaced.

Step 7 — Deliver the package

Output: the policy (in the requested language(s), RTL-aware for Arabic per structure-clauses-and-craft.md

§7) · a dated version header + "changes" clause · the conditional-links status · the **practices-confirmed

vs clauses-generated reconciliation** (the key anti-deception artifact) · the [GAP] list · the risk-tier /

"get a lawyer" banner. Default output format: Markdown (offer HTML on request). Recommend human review of any

machine translation.

Hard rules (guardrails)

  • Never claim the user honors GPC / DNT, encrypts data, has a DPO, or retains data for N days unless the user

confirmed it — these are enforceable and false ones are deceptive.

  • Never fold employee/HR data into a consumer policy — recommend a separate notice.
  • Never present this as legal advice. INSIST on a lawyer (HARD banner) for: under-13/children, health/PHI,

biometric, fintech/payments beyond a standard processor, selling data / data broker, AI training on user

data, large-scale/systematic monitoring, precise geolocation at scale, or simultaneous EU+UK+US+other coverage.

  • Keep the policy in sync with reality: never output "please check this page periodically for changes" as the

only update mechanism — it is "insufficient and unfair" (WP260). Use a dated change log + active material-change notice.

Companion documents

A privacy policy is necessary but not sufficient. Where relevant, tell the user they may also need: a

Cookie Policy + consent banner, a DPA (Art 28) for processors, a RoPA (Art 30), a HIPAA **Notice

of Privacy Practices (health), a GLBA notice (finance), and a separate employee privacy notice**. This

skill drafts the privacy policy (and an embedded cookie section / standalone cookie policy on request); it

flags the others rather than silently omitting them.


*Built from primary-source research (regulator texts, statutes, and official platform terms) verified

2026-06. Sources are cited inside each references/ file. AGPL-3.0. Informational template — not legal advice.*

How to use it

Copy the folder

Take lawve-ai/privacy-policy-stephane-boghossian from the repository into ~/.claude/skills for personal use, or into .claude/skills inside a project.

Check the name does not clash

The agent identifies a skill by the name field in its header. Two skills with the same name cannot sit side by side — one of them will be ignored.