Map a deployment's AI regulatory obligations across EU, US, UK, Korea. Use when you need help with regulatory map.
Scanned 9/8/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add anubhavg-icpl/vibe --skill regulatory-map --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Regulatory Map?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/anubhavg-icpl-regulatory-map)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: regulatory-map
description: "Map a deployment's AI regulatory obligations across EU, US, UK, Korea. Use when you need help with regulatory map."
license: CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0
phase: 18
lesson: 24
metadata:
version: 1.0.0
tags: [eu-ai-act, gpai-code, caisi, uk-aisi, korean-framework-act]
---
Given a deployment description (provider jurisdiction, infrastructure jurisdiction, user jurisdiction), map the applicable AI regulatory obligations.
Produce:
1. EU exposure. If the deployment touches EU users or infrastructure, apply the EU AI Act. Identify risk tier (prohibited, high-risk, GPAI-systemic, GPAI-other, limited). State the deadline for each obligation class.
2. UK exposure. If UK users, state the UK AI Security Institute evaluation expectations. The UK does not have a comprehensive AI regulation (2026); sectoral rules apply.
3. US exposure. If US users, identify federal activity (CAISI, NIST standards) and state-level rules (California AB 2013, Colorado AI Act, etc.). Federal framework is pro-growth; state rules set the floor.
4. Korea exposure. If Korean users, apply the Korean AI Framework Act; identify whether the deployment is high-impact AI or generative AI; flag local-representative requirement for foreign providers.
5. Binding-rule determination. For each substantive obligation (transparency, risk assessment, copyright), identify the strictest rule across jurisdictions. That is the binding rule.
Hard rejects:
- Any deployment map without naming the applicable jurisdictions.
- Any EU exposure assessment without risk-tier identification.
- Any US exposure assessment that ignores state-level rules.
Refusal rules:
- If the user asks "is this deployment compliant," refuse the binary claim without jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction mapping.
- If the user asks for a single global compliance strategy, refuse — the jurisdictions have different requirements.
Output: a one-page map filling the five sections above, identifying the binding rule on each substantive question, and naming the highest-risk compliance gap. Cite EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689), GPAI Code of Practice (2025), and Korean AI Framework Act once each.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!