# Plan German E-Invoicing Readiness

German businesses must navigate structured invoice formats, transition dates, and archiving requirements. This public guide helps AI assistants organize readiness questions and draft documentation outlines.

## Install

```bash
npx skillstore add nexaiguy/nex-einvoice-de
```

## Metadata

- Status: approved
- Slug: nexaiguy-nex-einvoice-de
- Version: 1.0
- Author version: 1.0
- Skillstore revision: r1
- Version status: invalid
- Tree hash: 11e6a0ac441a365f4589b3d127f58062cc054ee073e90dcc866fd5400b85a425
- Author: nexaiguy
- GitHub username: nexaiguy
- License: MIT
- Repository: https://github.com/nexaiguy/nex-ai-skills/tree/463aaff26593654193deb52f24d18e80ec21e323/skills/nex-einvoice-de
- Ref: 3ddfdca559084abffbfdd188f2ba14b597dcfd9c
- Supported tools: Claude, Codex, Claude Code
- Audit status: complete
- Agent install advisory: allowed
- Manual install advisory: allowed
- Artifact signature: available
- Audit attestation: unavailable
- Human verification: not\_verified
- Risk factors: network
- Quality score: 78
- Quality tier: bronze
- Public page: https://skillstore.pages.dev/skills/nexaiguy-nex-einvoice-de
- Manifest: https://skillstore.pages.dev/api/skills/nexaiguy-nex-einvoice-de/manifest

## Capabilities

- Explain the guide's sample turnover-based German B2B transition timeline.
- Frame XRechnung and ZUGFeRD selection questions for B2B and B2G scenarios.
- Structure readiness checklist drafts around turnover and customer mix.
- Guide procedure documentation outline requests for digital invoice workflows.
- Identify UStG field mapping and invoice retention as review topics.

## Use Cases

- Prepare an SME readiness review: Organize questions about turnover, customer types, receipt capability, and issuance planning before a professional compliance review.
- Scope invoice format requirements: Identify recipient requirements and format decisions for a German invoicing integration, while separating guidance from technical validation.
- Draft invoice procedure documentation: Create an initial workflow outline for receipt, checks, archiving, and retrieval, with unresolved compliance questions marked.

## Prompt Templates

### Understand the guide

```
Summarize this guide's German e-invoicing scope in plain language. Separate its stated guidance from rules requiring current official verification.
```

### Build a readiness checklist

```
Draft a readiness checklist for a German company with [turnover] annual turnover and [customer mix]. Ask about missing facts and flag deadline assumptions.
```

### Compare format options

```
Compare XRechnung and ZUGFeRD for [B2B or B2G scenario]. Identify recipient requirements, routing questions, and validation steps without claiming the guide validates XML.
```

### Draft a procedure review package

```
Draft a procedure documentation outline for [invoice workflow]. Include field mapping questions, archiving controls, retention assumptions, and unresolved items for tax and technical reviewers.
```

## Limitations

- Contains one Markdown guide; scripts, extension source, and original package templates are not included.
- Provides no executable XML validator or detailed field mapping tables.
- Does not provide legal or tax advice; verify dates, exceptions, and retention rules against current official sources.
- Does not cover core Peppol network mechanics or non-German mandates.

## Best Practices

- Provide turnover, the relevant financial year, customer locations, and B2B or B2G status before requesting a readiness assessment.
- Verify legal dates, exemptions, format versions, and retention rules using current official sources.
- Use dedicated invoice validators and obtain professional review before treating generated documentation as compliant.

## Anti Patterns

- Treating the guide's legal currency claims as independent verification or legal advice.
- Assuming the public guide includes the paid package's scripts, templates, or automated validation.
- Applying one format recommendation to every recipient or extending German guidance to other countries.

## Security Audit

- Audited at: 2026-11-02T12:25:16.079\+00:00
- Summary: All three static findings are false positives: two attribution links and a footer incorrectly flagged as system reconnaissance. No evidence found of exfiltration, system inspection, or prompt injection in the reviewed guide. The linked sites and absent package components were not evaluated.

## Stats

- Views: 0
- Downloads: 0
- Favorites: 0
- Popularity score: 0