dsgvo-audit

Multi-phase DSGVO/GDPR compliance audit skill and task list for agentic QA systems (Germany). Scans database schemas, controller files, auth, subject rights (export/erasure), log/stream leakage, and third-party processor integrations for GDPR/DSGVO compliance surface. Use when invoked as /dsgvo-audit, or asked for "DSGVO-Prüfung", "GDPR audit", "dsgvo check", or "compliance check".

Taras Boiko@bergschloss

Install

openclaw skills install @bergschloss/dsgvo-audit

Skill: dsgvo-audit

Trigger

Use this skill when the user invokes /dsgvo-audit, asks for:

"DSGVO-Prüfung", "GDPR audit", "GDPR check", "compliance check"
"GDPR violation check", "GDPR personal data flow"
"account deletion check", "data subject rights check"
"third-party processors", "Stripe AVV", "RustDesk DSGVO"

Default behavior when invoked without a scope argument: run the full 7-phase audit sequentially on the entire repository. When a scope is provided (e.g. /dsgvo-audit Scope: auth-registration), run only the phases relevant to that scope and note which phases were skipped.

STRICT READ-ONLY: Never modify, refactor, or create files inside the project repository. Only write reports to $outDir under _Reports.

For security/auth/crypto depth — use forensic-audit. For UX/product logic — use product-ux-audit. This skill focuses exclusively on DSGVO/GDPR compliance surface.

Stack Context ([Project Name])

Adaptation Tip: Replace the stack description below with your own target application components.

Always carry this context through every phase — do not re-derive:

Layer	Example Tech / Scope	DSGVO Relevance & Focus
Frontend	Next.js / React / Vue	Consent collection, cookies, privacy notice, Impressum
API / Backend	Fastify / Express / NestJS	Data processing, endpoints, backend validation, logs
Database	Prisma schema / PostgreSQL / MySQL	PII model definitions, cascades, retention, encryption
Desktop / Client apps	Electron / Native Clients	Local PII storage, credentials caching
Payment Gateway	Stripe / PayPal / Braintree	Art. 28 DPA (AVV), billing PII, webhook security
Communications	Twilio / SendGrid / Mailgun	SMS/Email sending, Art. 28, opt-out mechanisms
Event Streams	SSE / WebSockets / RabbitMQ	PII leakage in live message payloads
Background Workers	Cron jobs / BullMQ / Celery	Retention enforcement, automated deletion/anonymization

Execution Protocol

Pre-flight (before any phase)

Task list: Create a TaskCreate entry for each phase. Mark each in_progress when starting, completed when the phase file is verified. Never mark a phase complete without file verification.

Resolve output path:

Windows (PowerShell):

powershell

$outDir = "$env:USERPROFILE\Desktop\_Reports\dsgvo-audit_$(Get-Date -Format 'yyyy-MM-dd_HHmm')"
New-Item -ItemType Directory -Force -Path $outDir

Linux / macOS (bash):

bash

outDir="$HOME/Desktop/_Reports/dsgvo-audit_$(date +%Y-%m-%d_%H%M)"
mkdir -p "$outDir"

Abort if creation fails.

Repo context (embed in every report header):

bash

git rev-parse --short HEAD
git branch --show-current
git status --short

PII Quick Scan (run before Phase 0 to orient findings):

bash

# Personal data patterns in source
rg -i "email|phone|telefon|name|address|adresse|geburtstag|birthdate|iban|kontonummer" \
  --type ts --type tsx -l

# PII in console.log / app.log
rg "console\.(log|error|warn)\(.*?(email|phone|name|token|password|rustdesk)" \
  --type ts -l

# PII in SSE event payloads
rg "reply\.raw\.write|res\.write|sendEvent" --type ts -l

# Hardcoded PII or secrets in source
rg -i "password\s*=\s*['\"][^'\"]{4,}|api_key\s*=\s*['\"]|secret\s*=\s*['\"]" \
  --type ts -l

# Missing DSGVO endpoints
rg "dsgvo|gdpr|delete-account|export|auskunft|loeschung" \
  --type ts -i -l

# RustDesk credential storage
rg "rustdesk|rdPassword|rdId|remoteId|accessCode" --type ts -l

# Consent logging
rg "consent|einwilligung|zustimmung|agreed|acceptedAt" --type ts -l

# TODO/FIXME markers in DSGVO-adjacent code
rg "TODO|FIXME|HACK" --type ts | rg -i "dsgvo|gdpr|delete|consent|privacy|datenschutz"

Schema snapshot:

bash

cat packages/db/prisma/schema.prisma
# or:
rg --files | rg "schema\.prisma"

Read the full schema — it defines the PII surface.

Report Header Template

# [Phase Title]
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM
**Repo**: [repo root path]
**Git HEAD**: [short hash] ([branch])
**Dirty files**: [git status --short output or "clean"]
**Auditor role**: [role for this phase]
---

Finding Format

text

[file:line] SEVERITY — short title

**Observed**: what the code actually does (cite file:line)
**DSGVO Article**: Art. XX — what it requires
**Gap**: what is missing or broken
**Risk**: concrete consequence (fine, complaint, data breach)
**Fix direction**: concrete next step (no full rewrites)

Severity: CRITICAL (Art. violation, fine risk > €20k) / HIGH (likely violation, complaint risk) / MEDIUM (gap, best-practice miss) / LOW (minor, documentation gap) / NOTE.

Phase Discipline

Fresh pass per phase — do not rely on prior-phase memory; re-read relevant files for each phase's specific lens.
Cross-phase dedup — if a finding was already reported in a previous phase, write → see Phase N: [brief label] instead of repeating the full finding. Ownership:
- Phase 0 owns PII inventory findings (what data exists, where it lives).
- Phase 1 owns legal basis findings (Art. 6/7/9 gaps).
- Phase 2 owns data subject rights findings (Art. 15-22 endpoint gaps).
- Phase 3 owns retention/minimization findings (Art. 5 storage limitation).
- Phase 4 owns third-party processor findings (Art. 28/44ff gaps).
- Phase 5 owns technical security findings (Art. 32 measures) — defer depth to forensic-audit.
- Phase 6 owns DPIA/Impressum/DSE findings.
- If a finding fits multiple phases, record it fully in its owning phase and reference by file:line from the other.
Sequential phases — Phase N+1 starts only after Phase N's deliverable is written and verified (> 500 bytes).
Verify write: after each phase, confirm the deliverable file exists and contains at least one substantive finding. If a phase genuinely has zero findings, write an explicit "No findings — checked: [what was checked]" line.

Phase 0 — PII Inventory

Role: EU Data Protection Officer. Task: Create a complete map of what personal data the target project collects, where it lives, and under what legal basis.

PASS 1: Prisma Schema PII Audit

Read schema.prisma (find via rg --files | rg schema.prisma). For every model, identify:

Fields that are personal data (name, email, phone, address, IP, device ID, behavioral data)
Fields that are special category data (Art. 9): health, biometric, location, access logs to private computers
Whether each field has @db.Text, encryption marker, or is stored plaintext
onDelete behavior — does cascade wipe PII or leave orphaned records?

RustDesk-specific: rdId, rdPassword, accessCode, or equivalent fields — these grant access to a private computer and qualify as sensitive data requiring heightened protection (Art. 9(1) analogy or at minimum Art. 32 strong encryption).

PASS 2: Data Flow Map

For each PII category found in PASS 1, trace:

Where it enters the system (registration form, operator input, API call)
Which services/apps can read it (apps/web, apps/api, Electron apps)
Whether it leaves the system (Stripe, Twilio, RustDesk relay server, external APIs)
Where it is deleted (or not)

PASS 3: Log & SSE PII Leakage

Check Fastify route files and SSE handler for PII appearing in:

console.log / app.log / fastify.log
SSE event payloads (reply.raw.write(...))
Error response bodies sent to client
HTTP response headers

Deliverable: $outDir\audit_0_pii-inventory.md Verify write: file must exist and be > 500 bytes before Phase 1 begins.

Phase 1 — Legal Basis & Consent (Art. 6, 7, 9 DSGVO)

Role: EU DPO + DSGVO-Anwalt. Fresh pass — re-read relevant files; do not rely on Phase 0 memory.

PASS 1: Art. 6 Legal Basis per Processing Activity

For each PII category from Phase 0, determine which legal basis is claimed in practice:

lit. b (Vertragserfüllung): processing necessary to deliver the service
lit. c (rechtliche Verpflichtung): legal obligation (tax, commercial law)
lit. f (berechtigtes Interesse): legitimate interest — is a balancing test documented?
lit. a (Einwilligung): consent — see PASS 2

Check: is the legal basis actually documented anywhere in the codebase (comments, Datenschutzerklärung, database)? Or is it assumed?

PASS 2: Consent Mechanism (Art. 7)

Is consent collected before remote control sessions (RustDesk access)? Where is it logged?
Is consent for marketing/tracking (if any analytics are present) collected with a proper consent banner (§25 TTDSG for cookies)?
Check apps/web for: cookie banner, consent state storage, consent withdrawal mechanism.
Is consent timestamp, IP, and text version stored immutably? (Nachweispflicht Art. 7(1))

PASS 3: Special Category Data (Art. 9)

RustDesk grants access to a private computer — this may constitute processing of data revealing private life and requires a specific Art. 9(2) exception or at minimum an explicit consent (Art. 9(2)(a)).

Check whether:

The privacy notice mentions this processing
An explicit consent is obtained before first remote session
The legal basis for storing RustDesk credentials is documented

PASS 4: Purpose Limitation (Art. 5(1)(b))

Are data collected for one purpose used for another? Check:

Does operator data (names, session logs) flow into analytics?
Does client registration data get used for marketing without separate consent?

Deliverable: $outDir\audit_1_legal-basis.md Verify write: > 500 bytes before Phase 2.

Phase 2 — Data Subject Rights (Art. 15–22 DSGVO)

Role: EU DPO + QA Automation Lead. Fresh pass.

For Germany: all requests must be fulfilled within 1 calendar month (Art. 12(3)). Deadline runs from receipt. Extension to 3 months possible if complex — but user must be informed within month 1.

PASS 1: Auskunftsrecht (Art. 15) — Right of Access

Find the data export/access endpoint (likely GET /api/dsgvo/export or similar):

Does it return ALL personal data for the requesting user?
Does it include: processed data, purposes, legal bases, retention periods, third-party recipients, source of data?
Is it scoped to the requesting user only (no IDOR via user ID swap)?
Is the download URL time-limited or user-scoped?

PASS 2: Recht auf Löschung (Art. 17) — Right to Erasure

Find the account deletion endpoint (likely POST /api/dsgvo/delete-account):

Does it cascade-delete or anonymize ALL PII in all related models?
Check every Prisma model with a userId/clientId relation — does onDelete: Cascade or onDelete: SetNull apply, or is the delete manual?
Are RustDesk credentials (rdId, rdPassword) wiped on deletion?
Are session recordings, chat logs, appointment history deleted or anonymized?
Is there a retention exception logged (Art. 17(3) — legal obligation to keep billing records 10 years)?

PASS 3: Recht auf Berichtigung (Art. 16) — Rectification

Is there an endpoint/flow for users to correct their personal data?
Does it update all copies (Prisma DB + any caches)?

PASS 4: Datenübertragbarkeit (Art. 20) — Data Portability

Does the export (Art. 15) also serve as the portability export?
Is data exported in a machine-readable format (JSON, CSV) — not just human-readable PDF?

PASS 5: Widerspruchsrecht (Art. 21) — Right to Object

If legitimate interest (Art. 6(1)(f)) is used as legal basis for any processing: is there an object/opt-out mechanism?
Is there an unsubscribe/opt-out for any marketing communications (if Twilio is used for notifications)?

PASS 6: Deadline Tracking

Is there any mechanism to track incoming data subject requests and their 1-month deadlines?
Or does this entirely rely on manual process? (Note: this is a compliance gap even if not a code issue)

Deliverable: $outDir\audit_2_subject-rights.md Verify write: > 500 bytes before Phase 3.

Phase 3 — Data Minimization & Retention (Art. 5 DSGVO)

Role: EU DPO + Principal DBA. Fresh pass.

PASS 1: Datensparsamkeit (Art. 5(1)(c)) — Data Minimization

Are there fields in Prisma models that are collected but never used in the application logic?
Are full addresses stored when only city/postal code is needed?
Are precise timestamps stored everywhere or only where needed?
Is the full RustDesk session content logged, or only metadata?

PASS 2: Speicherbegrenzung (Art. 5(1)(e)) — Storage Limitation

Is there a documented retention policy per data category?
Are there cron jobs that enforce deletion after retention period?
- Check proactive-outreach.ts and other cron files for any deletion logic
- If none exists: HIGH finding
Session logs, appointment history, queue entries — are they ever deleted automatically?
Stripe payment records: 10-year HGB retention is legal, but other Stripe webhook data?

PASS 3: Anonymization vs Deletion

When an account is "deleted", does the system:

Truly delete PII (preferred), or
Anonymize (replace with [deleted] / null / hash)? If anonymization: is it complete? No re-identification risk from remaining fields?

Deliverable: $outDir\audit_3_retention.md Verify write: > 500 bytes before Phase 4.

Phase 4 — Third-Party Processors & Data Transfers (Art. 28, 44ff DSGVO)

Role: EU DPO + Contract Lawyer (DE). Fresh pass.

PASS 1: Stripe (Zahlungsdienstleister)

Stripe processes payment card data and billing PII — Auftragsverarbeiter (Art. 28)
Check: is a Data Processing Agreement (DPA/AVV) with Stripe in place? (Stripe provides a standard DPA — but does the target project/company accept it?)
Does Stripe send webhook data that includes PII? Check webhook handler for what's logged.
Stripe servers in USA → international transfer. Is the Stripe DPA + SCCs sufficient? (Current: Stripe has EU-US Data Privacy Framework adequacy)

PASS 2: RustDesk (Fernzugriff)

This is the highest-risk processor:

Is RustDesk self-hosted (then: no third-party transfer) or using RustDesk's public relay servers (then: data transfer, potentially outside EU)?
Find RustDesk config in apps/api or apps/desktop — what relay/rendezvous server is configured?
If public RustDesk relay: where are these servers located? Transfer to non-EU = need SCCs or adequacy decision.
Is there an AVV with RustDesk GmbH or the relay operator?
Screen content during remote sessions — is it logged/recorded? Where?

PASS 3: Twilio (Kommunikation)

Twilio processes phone numbers and message content — Auftragsverarbeiter
Is Twilio's DPA accepted?
Twilio servers: EU region configured or US default? Check Twilio client initialization for region config.
SMS content: does it include PII (names, appointment details)?

PASS 4: Other Third Parties

Any analytics tools on apps/web (Google Analytics, Plausible, etc.)? Check layout.tsx, _app.tsx, script tags.
Error monitoring (Sentry, etc.)? Does it send PII in error payloads?
Email provider (SendGrid, SES, Postmark)? AVV in place?
Hosting provider (Hetzner, as mentioned earlier) — AVV for server hosting?

Deliverable: $outDir\audit_4_processors.md Verify write: > 500 bytes before Phase 5.

Phase 5 — Technical Security Measures (Art. 32 DSGVO)

Role: EU DPO + Security Engineer. Fresh pass. NOT a full security audit — defer depth to forensic-audit. Focus on DSGVO Art. 32 minimum.

PASS 1: Verschlüsselung (Encryption at Rest & in Transit)

RustDesk credentials (rdId, rdPassword) in database: encrypted or plaintext? Find the field and check for encryption helper usage.
Client PII fields (name, address, phone): any field-level encryption, or rely solely on DB-level encryption?
Is the database connection using TLS? (DATABASE_URL contains sslmode=require?)
HTTPS enforced for all apps/web and apps/api endpoints?

PASS 2: Zugriffskontrolle (Access Control)

Can apps/desktop (client-facing) access other clients' data via API? Check ownership guards.
Can operators see data of clients not assigned to them?
Admin endpoints (/api/admin/*): role-checked, or any authenticated user can call them?

PASS 3: Pseudonymisierung (Art. 32(1)(a))

Are analytics/logging events pseudonymized (hashed user IDs, not raw email)?
Queue entries visible in SSE: do they contain full client names, or only IDs?

PASS 4: Verfügbarkeit und Belastbarkeit (Art. 32(1)(b)(c))

Is there a documented backup strategy? (Code evidence: backup cron, DB dump scripts)
Note: full DR planning is out of scope here — flag absence as MEDIUM/LOW.

PASS 5: Verletzungsmeldung Readiness (Art. 33/34)

If a data breach occurs: is there a process (even non-code) to notify BfDI/Landesdatenschutzbehörde within 72 hours?
Check for any breach detection/alerting code (anomaly detection, failed access alerts)
Note absence as MEDIUM — this is mostly procedural but should be flagged.

Deliverable: $outDir\audit_5_technical-measures.md Verify write: > 500 bytes before Phase 6.

Phase 6 — DPIA Threshold & Impressum/DSE Check

Role: EU DPO. Fresh pass.

PASS 1: DSFA-Schwellenwert (Art. 35 DSGVO) — DPIA Threshold

Check the target project against EDPB WP248 rev.01 criteria to determine if a DPIA is required (e.g. due to remote computer access, systematic monitoring, processing of sensitive/location data, or vulnerable data subjects like children or elderly):

Criterion	Project Specifics	Triggered?
Evaluation/scoring of persons	e.g. credit rating, performance evaluation	Check
Automated decision-making	e.g. automated routing, profiling	Check
Systematic monitoring	e.g. screen access, location tracking	Check
Sensitive/special category data	e.g. biometric data, medical data, access credentials	Check
Large scale	e.g. large volume of data subjects	Check
Matching/combining datasets	e.g. merging user behavior data	Check
Vulnerable subjects	e.g. children, patients, employees	Check
New technology	e.g. machine learning, advanced telemetry	Check
Transfer to third countries	e.g. data transfer outside EEA	Check

If ≥ 2 criteria: DPIA is mandatory. Flag as CRITICAL if no DPIA exists.

PASS 2: Impressum (§5 DDG / §5 TMG)

Check apps/web for Impressum page (likely /impressum route):

Vollständiger Name / Firmenname
Anschrift (kein Postfach)
E-Mail-Adresse
Handelsregisternummer (if GmbH/UG/AG)
Umsatzsteuer-ID or Steuernummer
Verantwortlicher für den Inhalt (§18(2) MStV)

PASS 3: Datenschutzerklärung (Art. 13/14 DSGVO)

Check apps/web for Datenschutzerklärung page:

Verantwortlicher mit vollständiger Adresse
Datenschutzbeauftragter (if required: §38 BDSG — 20+ employees processing automatically)
All processing activities listed with legal basis and purpose
Third-party processors named (Stripe, Twilio, RustDesk)
Data subject rights explained (Art. 15-21)
Right to lodge complaint with supervisory authority (Aufsichtsbehörde for the Bundesland)
Cookie notice (if any tracking cookies used)
International transfers disclosed

Deliverable: $outDir\audit_6_dpia-impressum.md Verify write: > 500 bytes before Final.

Challenge Pass (before Final Deliverable)

Before writing the master summary, validate every CRITICAL and HIGH finding from all phases.

If subagents are available: spawn one fresh subagent (no shared context, read-only) per batch of findings (5–10 findings per batch). Give it only the finding text + repo path — not your reasoning. Use this prompt template:

"You are a DSGVO compliance reviewer with no prior context. Read the file at [repo path] and locate [file:line]. Verify the following finding against the actual code. Answer for each finding: Confirmed, Overstated (suggest downgraded severity and reason), or Not an issue (drop, with reason). Do not guess — cite the actual line you read. Finding: [paste full finding block]"
If subagents are not available: re-read the cited file:line yourself with fresh eyes and apply the same three-way verdict.

Apply the verdicts (drop/downgrade/keep) before building the rollup table. Note in the master summary how many findings were dropped/downgraded and why — this is a signal of audit quality, not a failure.

Final Deliverable

Write $outDir\audit_master_summary.md:

# DSGVO Audit — Master Summary
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
**Project**: [Project Name]
**Git HEAD**: [hash] ([branch])

## Compliance Score
[N]/100 — calculated as: 100 minus (CRITICAL×20, HIGH×10, MEDIUM×5, LOW×1)

## Severity Rollup

| Phase                     | CRITICAL | HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW | NOTE |
|---------------------------|----------|------|--------|-----|------|
| 0 PII Inventory           |        N |    N |      N |   N |    N |
| 1 Legal Basis & Consent   |        N |    N |      N |   N |    N |
| 2 Data Subject Rights     |        N |    N |      N |   N |    N |
| 3 Retention               |        N |    N |      N |   N |    N |
| 4 Third-Party Processors  |        N |    N |      N |   N |    N |
| 5 Technical Measures      |        N |    N |      N |   N |    N |
| 6 DPIA / Impressum / DSE  |        N |    N |      N |   N |    N |
| TOTAL                     |        N |    N |      N |   N |    N |

## Top 5 Critical/High Findings
1. [file:line] CRITICAL — ...
2. ...

## Quick Wins (fixable in < 1 day)
- ...

## Structural Fixes (require planning)
- ...

## DPIA Required?
[YES/NO/UNCERTAIN — with rationale]

## Bußgeldrisiko (Art. 83 DSGVO)
[LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH — with rationale]

Then concatenate all phase files into: $outDir\FINAL_dsgvo-audit_$(Get-Date -Format 'yyyy-MM-dd_HHmm').md

Order: master summary → phase 0 → 1 → 2 → 3 → 4 → 5 → 6. Separate with --- and # Phase N: [title] headings.

Completion Output (to chat)

text

DSGVO/GDPR Audit completed. Saved to: [outDir]

Files:
- audit_0_pii-inventory.md
- audit_1_legal-basis.md
- audit_2_subject-rights.md
- audit_3_retention.md
- audit_4_processors.md
- audit_5_technical-measures.md
- audit_6_dpia-impressum.md
- audit_master_summary.md
- FINAL_dsgvo-audit_[timestamp].md

Compliance Score: [N]/100
DPIA Required: [YES/NO/UNCERTAIN]
Regulatory Fine Risk: [LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH]

Known Limitations

Legal currency: all legal references are based on DSGVO/BDSG/TTDSG/DDG as in force at time of writing. Verify regulatory text currency before relying on findings for formal filings or legal advice.
Stack specificity: RustDesk, Stripe, and Twilio sections reflect the reference stack (Prisma/Fastify/Next.js). Adapt processor names, field names, and route patterns for other architectures.
Procedural gaps: compliance gaps that are procedural rather than code-observable (missing DPA contracts, absent DPIA documentation, staff training, breach response procedures) are flagged where code evidence is absent, but cannot be fully verified from source alone.
Severity = regulatory risk, not exploitability: CRITICAL means high fine risk under Art. 83 DSGVO, not necessarily an exploitable vulnerability. For security depth, pair with forensic-audit.
False positives: the PII Quick Scan uses grep patterns and will match field names that are not actually personal data (e.g. name in a product model). The Challenge Pass filters these before the final report — do not skip it.
No legal advice: audit findings are engineering observations about compliance surface. They are not legal advice and do not constitute a formal DSGVO assessment.

Constraints

READ-ONLY on project source. Zero writes inside the repository.
Evidence-only: every finding cites file:line. No speculation framed as fact.
Timestamped output: never overwrite previous audit runs.
Sequential phases: Phase N+1 starts only after Phase N file is confirmed written and > 500 bytes.
TaskCreate/TaskUpdate: create a task per phase at start, mark in_progress when beginning, completed after file verification.
No overlap with forensic-audit: if a security vulnerability surfaces (e.g. IDOR), note it with pointer "→ forensic-audit for depth" rather than full finding.
No overlap with product-ux-audit: UX issues noted only if they directly cause a DSGVO gap (e.g. consent dialog not visible).
Germany-specific: all legal references are DSGVO + BDSG + TTDSG/DDG + applicable Landesrecht. Not UK GDPR, not US privacy law.
Severity = regulatory risk, not exploitability. CRITICAL = Art. 83(5) fine territory (up to €20M or 4% global turnover).
Permission Handling: If you do not have permission to write directly to %USERPROFILE%\Desktop\_Reports, request it using ask_permission for write_file with the target path, or execute file write operations via the run_command tool in PowerShell.

dsgvo-audit

Install

Skill: dsgvo-audit

Trigger

Stack Context ([Project Name])

Execution Protocol

Pre-flight (before any phase)

Report Header Template

Finding Format

Phase Discipline

Phase 0 — PII Inventory

PASS 1: Prisma Schema PII Audit

PASS 2: Data Flow Map

PASS 3: Log & SSE PII Leakage

Phase 1 — Legal Basis & Consent (Art. 6, 7, 9 DSGVO)

PASS 1: Art. 6 Legal Basis per Processing Activity

PASS 2: Consent Mechanism (Art. 7)

PASS 3: Special Category Data (Art. 9)

PASS 4: Purpose Limitation (Art. 5(1)(b))

Phase 2 — Data Subject Rights (Art. 15–22 DSGVO)

PASS 1: Auskunftsrecht (Art. 15) — Right of Access

PASS 2: Recht auf Löschung (Art. 17) — Right to Erasure

PASS 3: Recht auf Berichtigung (Art. 16) — Rectification

PASS 4: Datenübertragbarkeit (Art. 20) — Data Portability

PASS 5: Widerspruchsrecht (Art. 21) — Right to Object

PASS 6: Deadline Tracking

Phase 3 — Data Minimization & Retention (Art. 5 DSGVO)

PASS 1: Datensparsamkeit (Art. 5(1)(c)) — Data Minimization

PASS 2: Speicherbegrenzung (Art. 5(1)(e)) — Storage Limitation

PASS 3: Anonymization vs Deletion

Phase 4 — Third-Party Processors & Data Transfers (Art. 28, 44ff DSGVO)

PASS 1: Stripe (Zahlungsdienstleister)

PASS 2: RustDesk (Fernzugriff)

PASS 3: Twilio (Kommunikation)

PASS 4: Other Third Parties

Phase 5 — Technical Security Measures (Art. 32 DSGVO)

PASS 1: Verschlüsselung (Encryption at Rest & in Transit)

PASS 2: Zugriffskontrolle (Access Control)

PASS 3: Pseudonymisierung (Art. 32(1)(a))

PASS 4: Verfügbarkeit und Belastbarkeit (Art. 32(1)(b)(c))

PASS 5: Verletzungsmeldung Readiness (Art. 33/34)

Phase 6 — DPIA Threshold & Impressum/DSE Check

PASS 1: DSFA-Schwellenwert (Art. 35 DSGVO) — DPIA Threshold

PASS 2: Impressum (§5 DDG / §5 TMG)

PASS 3: Datenschutzerklärung (Art. 13/14 DSGVO)

Challenge Pass (before Final Deliverable)

Final Deliverable

Completion Output (to chat)

Known Limitations

Constraints

Related skills