ai-disclosure-policy
Decide when and how your product and communications must (or should) label AI-generated content, and write the disclosure policy — surface-by-surface rules, exact label wording, and the review trigger for regulations like the EU AI Act's transparency obligations. Use when asked 'do we have to label AI content', 'write our AI disclosure policy', 'are we covered for the AI Act', or when marketing/support/product start shipping AI-generated output. Produces a disclosure policy with a per-surface matrix and ready-to-use label copy. Not legal advice.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills /tmp/ai-disclosure-policy && cp -r /tmp/ai-disclosure-policy/exports/openclaw/ai-disclosure-policy ~/.claude/skills/ai-disclosure-policySKILL.md
# AI Disclosure Policy Skill
Every company now ships AI-generated content somewhere — support replies,
marketing images, chatbot conversations, synthetic voices — and most have no
rule for when to say so. Meanwhile transparency regulation is arriving (the EU
AI Act's transparency obligations for chatbots, synthetic media, and deepfakes
being the headline example, with obligations phasing in through 2026–2027), and
the trust cost of an *undisclosed* AI surface being discovered is higher than
the disclosure ever was. This skill produces the policy: what you label, where,
in what words — with the honest line that final regulatory judgment belongs to
your lawyer, and this document is what makes that conversation short.
## What This Skill Produces
- A **surface inventory**: every place AI-generated content reaches users or
the public, with today's disclosure state
- A **disclosure matrix**: per surface — required (regulatory), expected
(platform/industry norm), or chosen (trust) — with the reasoning
- **Label copy** ready to ship: UI strings, footer lines, image/video marks,
chatbot self-identification wording
- The **review triggers**: what changes (new surface, new market, new
regulation phase) forces a policy re-read, and who owns it
## Required Inputs
Ask for (if not already provided):
- Where AI output ships today or soon: chatbots, support, marketing content,
images/video/voice, code, docs — and which are fully automated vs
human-reviewed
- Markets served (EU exposure changes obligations) and industry (regulated
sectors add rules)
- Existing policy fragments ([[ai-usage-policy]] covers internal use — this
skill covers outward disclosure; link them, don't duplicate)
- Risk posture: minimum-compliance or trust-differentiator
## Process
1. **Inventory before policy.** List every AI-touching surface, then the ones
the user forgot: auto-generated email, AI-assisted support macros, synthetic
voices on calls, generated product imagery, auto-summaries in the product.
For each: fully-AI, AI-drafted-human-approved, or AI-assisted — the
disclosure answer differs by degree of human control.
2. **Sort into required / expected / chosen.** Required: where a regulation
plausibly applies — chatbots that could be mistaken for humans, synthetic
media, emotionally targeted content (flag these for counsel; cite the
regulation family, not invented article numbers). Expected: platform rules
and industry norms (ad platforms, app stores increasingly require labels).
Chosen: where labeling is optional but discovery-risk or brand values argue
for it. State the reasoning per row — a policy without reasons decays.
3. **Write labels people won't hate.** Honest, short, non-groveling:
"AI-assisted, human-reviewed" beats a paragraph of throat-clearing. Chatbots
self-identify at conversation start, not in a footer. Human-approved content
can say so — the disclosure spectrum has two ends.
4. **Decide the edge cases explicitly**: AI-drafted-human-edited text (the big
one — set a threshold and say it), internal content that leaks, user-facing
personalization, A/B tests of the labels themselves (don't).
5. **Wire the triggers.** New surface, new market, automation-degree change,
regulation phase-in dates → named owner re-reviews. Policy without a
re-review trigger is a screenshot, not a policy.
## Output Format
```
## Where AI ships today
| Surface | Degree (full / drafted / assisted) | Disclosed today? |
## Disclosure matrix
| Surface | Required / Expected / Chosen | Reasoning | Label |
## Label copy (ready to ship)
[Exact strings per surface type]
## Edge-case rulings
[The threshold decisions, stated plainly]
## Review triggers & ownership
[What forces a re-read, who owns it, standing counsel questions]
```
## Quality Checks
- [ ] The inventory surfaced at least one AI surface the user didn't list
- [ ] Every matrix row carries reasoning; "required" rows name the regulation
family and carry the flag-for-counsel marker — no invented article
citations
- [ ] Label copy is shippable as-is: short, honest, located where users
actually are (chatbot labels at the top, not the terms page)
- [ ] The AI-drafted-human-edited threshold is decided, not deferred
- [ ] The not-legal-advice line is present and the counsel-question list makes
the legal review cheap
## Anti-Patterns
- [ ] Do not assert specific legal conclusions ("Article X requires you to…")
— identify plausibly-applicable obligations and route to counsel
- [ ] Do not write labels as apologies — disclosure done confidently is a
trust feature
- [ ] Do not produce one blanket rule; the matrix exists because a support
macro and a synthetic voice are different obligations
- [ ] Do not duplicate [[ai-usage-policy]] — internal use rules live there;
this is outward-facing disclosureDesign a 360-degree feedback survey or write a structured 360 feedback report. Use when asked to build a 360 feedback process, write 360 feedback for a colleague, design a feedback survey, or produce a feedback report. Produces either a complete survey instrument with rating scales and open-ended questions, or a structured narrative feedback report with themes, strengths, and development areas.
Decode a 401k or workplace retirement plan — the real cost of its funds, the match's fine print, vesting math, and the plan features worth using or avoiding. Use when someone asks 'is my 401k any good', 'decode my 401k plan', 'which funds should I look at', or 'what fees am I paying'. Produces a fee decode in dollars-over-time, match and vesting math, a fund-lineup triage by cost, and the questions for HR or the plan administrator.
Design statistically rigorous A/B tests for product features, UI changes, onboarding flows, and pricing experiments. Use when asked to set up an experiment, design an A/B test, calculate sample size, or interpret test results. Produces a complete test plan with hypothesis, variant definitions, sample size, duration estimate, guardrail metrics, and a results interpretation guide.
Analyse a finished A/B test and write the readout — the result, whether it's statistically and practically significant, what it means, and the ship/no-ship call. Use when asked to analyse experiment results, write an A/B test readout, interpret test data, or decide whether to ship a variant. Produces a clear verdict with the lift and confidence, segment cuts, the risks (peeking, novelty, sample), and a recommendation. Distinct from planning a test — this reads results.
Generate a WCAG 2.2 accessibility audit checklist and remediation suggestions for any UI or design. Use when asked to audit for accessibility, check WCAG compliance, review a design for a11y issues, or create an accessibility remediation plan. Produces a prioritised checklist with pass/fail assessments and specific fixes.
Plan a trip that actually works with a disability or access need — confirm real accessibility (not just 'accessible' labels), book the assistance in advance, plan for equipment and medication, and build in the contingencies for when access breaks down. Use when someone says 'plan an accessible trip', 'travelling with a wheelchair/disability', 'book assistance for my flight', or 'will this hotel actually work for me'. Produces an access-verified itinerary, an assistance-booking checklist, an equipment/medication plan, and contingency scripts. Verify specifics with providers.
Request a reasonable accommodation at work or in education — frame it around the barrier and the adjustment (not your diagnosis), cite the right process, and navigate the back-and-forth constructively. Use when someone says 'I need a workplace accommodation', 'request reasonable adjustments', 'ADA/Equality Act accommodation', or 'how do I ask for accommodations for my disability/condition'. Produces the request letter, a barriers-and-adjustments map, disclosure guidance, and a plan for the interactive process. Not legal advice — routes to the formal process and to advocacy where needed.
Build a structured account plan for any key customer or target account. Use when asked to create an account plan, key account strategy, strategic account review, or territory plan. Produces a complete account plan with relationship map, growth opportunities, risks, and 90-day action plan.