# Plan US Multi-State Privacy Compliance

US state privacy requirements create difficult applicability, disclosure, and request-handling decisions. This public guide frames AI-assisted compliance planning, with legal verification and implementation handled separately.

## Install

```bash
npx skillstore add nexaiguy/nex-us-privacy-multistate
```

## Metadata

- Status: approved
- Slug: nexaiguy-nex-us-privacy-multistate
- Version: 1.0
- Author version: 1.0
- Skillstore revision: r1
- Version status: invalid
- Tree hash: 1dfbf6e1192414932a754f593aa5fc0f13eb8fb43ec45320e248c815e4e3e4d3
- Author: nexaiguy
- GitHub username: nexaiguy
- License: MIT
- Repository: https://github.com/nexaiguy/nex-ai-skills/tree/463aaff26593654193deb52f24d18e80ec21e323/skills/nex-us-privacy-multistate
- 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: 77
- Quality tier: bronze
- Public page: https://skillstore.pages.dev/skills/nexaiguy-nex-us-privacy-multistate
- Manifest: https://skillstore.pages.dev/api/skills/nexaiguy-nex-us-privacy-multistate/manifest

## Capabilities

- Provides topic guidance for AI-assisted state privacy applicability reviews using business context.
- Identifies state-specific privacy disclosure topics, including California, Texas, and Maryland.
- Outlines DSR planning topics covering intake, verification, access, deletion, and appeals.
- Highlights Global Privacy Control and targeted advertising opt-out considerations.
- Introduces California Delete Act and data broker registration review topics.

## Use Cases

- Prepare an applicability review: Organize customer counts, revenue information, and advertising practices into questions for a state privacy applicability review.
- Plan policy disclosures: Develop a preliminary disclosure outline and identify state-specific issues for counsel to verify before publication.
- Design request handling: Draft an intake, verification, routing, and escalation plan for consumer privacy requests.

## Prompt Templates

### Explain the review scope

```
Using this guide, summarize the privacy review topics for a US online retailer. Separate included guidance from unavailable automation.
```

### Prepare an applicability checklist

```
Prepare an applicability checklist for [states] using [customer counts], [revenue], and [data practices]. Mark missing facts and require current authoritative sources for thresholds.
```

### Draft a disclosure outline

```
Draft a privacy notice outline for [business] in [states], based on [data practices]. Flag state-specific provisions and unresolved legal questions. Do not assume compliance.
```

### Design a request workflow

```
Design a DSR workflow for [business] in [states], covering verification, access, deletion, appeals, and GPC. Label unverified deadlines and implementation dependencies; use synthetic examples.
```

## Limitations

- Only SKILL.md is included; the advertised logic engine, scripts, extension source, and templates are absent.
- No bundled legal sources, verified threshold dataset, or live calendar substantiate the advertised 2026 accuracy and updates through 2028.
- The guide excludes federal HIPAA and GLBA filings and employee or B2B data contexts outside California.
- Outputs require independent legal review and do not implement policies, register businesses, or process requests automatically.

## Best Practices

- Verify every threshold, exemption, deadline, and effective date against current official sources before relying on an output.
- Provide aggregate business facts and synthetic request examples instead of identifiable customer records.
- Require counsel to review applicability decisions and policy language before publication or operational use.

## Anti Patterns

- Treating this public guide as an installed compliance engine or automatic legal update service.
- Applying example thresholds or response windows universally without checking state law and business facts.
- Assuming generated text implements GPC handling, submits registrations, or fulfills consumer requests.

## Security Audit

- Audited at: 2026-11-02T12:03:33.289\+00:00
- Summary: All four static findings are false positives: attribution URLs and business compliance language do not indicate exfiltration or system reconnaissance. No evidence found of malicious instructions, executable payloads, or unauthorized data collection in the reviewed guide. Claims about an included engine and live updates are unsupported by this single-file package and require independent verification.

## Stats

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