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-surfac…
它会碰到什么
这一栏是扫描器报的事实,不是结论。命中多不等于有毒(安全工具、规则库、示例脚本本来就会包含危险写法),命中少也不等于干净。它和你手上的凭据、文件、网络有什么关系,需要你自己看。
技能内容
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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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 disclosure
想直接用这个技能?
本站把开放许可(MIT / Apache 等)的技能按仓库打包整理到网盘,点一下转存到你自己的网盘,不用一个个从 GitHub 拉。许可未声明的技能只给原始仓库链接,不打包。
它属于哪个仓库
exports/openclaw/ai-disclosure-policy/SKILL.md同一个仓库里的其他技能
同名技能的其他版本
有 3 个不同仓库或目录里都有叫 ai-disclosure-policy 的技能。它们内容并不相同,别混用:
- mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills — Summarise what Ai Disclosure Policy does in one line. Use when asked to [trigger phrases t
- mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills — Decide when and how your product and communications must (or should) label AI-generated co