Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Us State Privacy?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/aibot88-us-state-privacy)
---
description: Assess US state privacy law compliance — VCDPA, CPA, CTDPA, UCPA, and emerging laws
---
# US State Privacy Law Assessment
Assess US state privacy law compliance for "$ARGUMENTS". Map applicable state laws, compare requirements, and create a cross-state compliance matrix.
## Prerequisites
Read `.metapowers/compliance/$ARGUMENTS/00-scope.md`. If this file does not exist, tell the user:
> Phase 0 (Scope) has not been completed for "$ARGUMENTS". Run `/compliance:regulatory-landscape $ARGUMENTS` first, or use `--skip-checks` to bypass.
If `--skip-checks` is present in $ARGUMENTS, skip this check.
## Process
1. **Read context files:**
- Read `plugins/compliance/shared/grc-lifecycle-guide.md` for GRC methodology reference
- Read `plugins/compliance/shared/assessment-template.md` for output structure
- Read `.metapowers/compliance/$ARGUMENTS/00-scope.md` for scope and control framework context
2. **Applicable state law mapping:**
- Determine which state laws apply based on organizational operations and customer base
- Assess applicability for established laws: Virginia VCDPA, Colorado CPA, Connecticut CTDPA, Utah UCPA
- Assess applicability for newer laws: Texas TDPSA, Oregon OCPA, Montana MCDPA, Iowa ICDPA, Delaware DPDPA, New Jersey NJDPA, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Nebraska, Maryland, Minnesota, and others
- Document applicability thresholds per state (consumer count, revenue, data processing volume)
3. **Cross-state requirement comparison:**
- Compare consumer rights across states (access, delete, correct, portability, opt-out)
- Identify opt-out vs opt-in consent models per state
- Compare right to cure periods (30 days, 60 days, or none)
- Map enforcement mechanisms (AG only vs private right of action)
- Assess universal opt-out signal requirements per state
4. **Common baseline identification:**
- Identify the most restrictive state as the compliance floor
- Map common requirements shared across all applicable states
- Highlight unique or unusual state-specific requirements
- Assess whether a single compliance program can satisfy all states
5. **Unique state requirements:**
- Assess Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) requirements by state
- Evaluate profiling and automated decision-making rights per state
- Review sensitive data definitions and consent requirements (varies by state)
- Assess children's data protections by state
- Evaluate data broker registration requirements where applicable
6. **State-by-state compliance matrix:**
- Create matrix: state vs requirement category (rights, notice, consent, DPIAs, enforcement)
- Score compliance per state per category
- Identify states with highest compliance gap
- Prioritize remediation by enforcement risk and gap severity
7. **Write the artifact** to `.metapowers/compliance/$ARGUMENTS/01-assess/us-state-privacy.md` following the assessment template structure with:
- **Applicable States** — list of states with applicability rationale
- **Cross-State Matrix** — requirements comparison across all applicable states
- **Common Baseline** — most restrictive floor requirements
- **Unique Requirements** — state-specific obligations not covered by baseline
- **Per-State Compliance Score** — readiness per state
- **Gap Analysis** — areas where current practices fall short per state
- **Evidence Inventory** — existing evidence and evidence gaps
- **Remediation Priorities** — ranked list of gaps to address
## Output
The US state privacy law assessment written to `.metapowers/compliance/$ARGUMENTS/01-assess/us-state-privacy.md`. Present a summary to the user highlighting:
- Number of applicable state laws and highest-risk states
- Common baseline compliance score
- States with the largest compliance gaps
- Top 3 gaps requiring remediation