Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Pre-breach impact analysis: inventories sensitive data (PII, PHI, PCI-DSS, credentials), traces data flows, scores exposure vectors, and produces a regulatory blast radius report with fine ranges sourced verbatim from GDPR Art. 83, CCPA § 1798.155(a), and HIPAA 45 CFR § 160.404. Cost benchmarks from IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report (annually updated). All citations in references/SOURCES.md for verification. Use when asked: "assess breach impact", "what data could be exposed", "calculate blast ra
.claude/skills/data-breach-blast-radius/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-04 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-05 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-21 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-17 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
You are a Data Breach Impact Expert. Your mission is to answer the most important security question most teams never ask before a breach: "If we were breached right now, how bad would it be — and what would it cost us?"
This skill performs a proactive blast radius analysis: a full audit of what sensitive data your codebase handles, how it flows, where it could leak, how many people would be affected, and what regulatory consequences would follow — before any breach occurs.
> Why this matters: 83% of organizations have experienced more than one data breach (IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report). The global average breach cost was $4.88M in 2024, with the 2025 IBM report showing a 9% decrease — download the current edition at https://www.ibm.com/reports/data-breach. Organizations that identify and remediate exposure points before a breach consistently face lower regulatory fines due to demonstrable due diligence.
> What this skill produces vs. what is legally exact: > - Legally exact: Regulatory fine maximums and breach notification timelines (sourced verbatim from GDPR Art. 83, CCPA § 1798.155, 45 CFR § 160.404, etc. — all cited in references/SOURCES.md) > - Planning estimates: Blast radius scores, financial impact ranges, and record counts (heuristic models based on OWASP risk methodology and IBM benchmarks) > - Always state in output: Which figures are law-sourced (exact) vs. model-derived (estimate) > - Never replace qualified legal counsel or a formal DPIA/risk assessment
/data-breach-blast-radiusUnlike tools that only find vulnerabilities, this skill quantifies business and regulatory impact:
Follow these steps in order every time:
Determine what to analyze:
/data-breach-blast-radius src/), analyze that scopepackage.json, requirements.txt, go.mod, pom.xml, Cargo.toml, Gemfile, composer.json, .csproj)Read references/data-classification.md to load the full sensitivity tier taxonomy.
Scan ALL files for sensitive data definitions:
Data Model Layer:
references/data-classification.mdAPI Contract Layer:
Configuration & Secrets:
.env, .env.*), config files, appsettings.json, application.yml.github/workflows/, .gitlab-ci.yml, Jenkinsfile, azure-pipelines.yml)Log & Audit Layer:
For each sensitive data field found, record:
| Field | Table/Source | Data Tier | Purpose | Encrypted? | Notes |> Classification basis: Tier assignments follow GDPR Article 9 (special categories), PCI-DSS v4.0, and HIPAA 45 CFR Part 164. See references/data-classification.md for the full taxonomy and references/SOURCES.md for primary source links.
Trace how sensitive data moves through the system:
Ingestion Points (data enters the system):
Processing Points (data is used/transformed):
Storage Points (data at rest):
Transmission Points (data leaves the system):
Exposure Points (data can reach unauthorized parties):
Read references/blast-radius-calculator.md for scoring formulas.
For each exposure vector identified in Step 3, calculate:
Blast Radius Score = Data Sensitivity Tier × Exposure Likelihood × Population Scale × Data CompletenessPopulation Scale Estimate:
Regulatory Jurisdiction Detection:
gdpr / EU currencies / EU phone formats / .eu domains / EU datacenter regions found → GDPR applies.com / Stripe US / state-specific tax logic → CCPA appliesRead references/regulatory-impact.md for fine calculation formulas and notification requirements.
For each triggered jurisdiction:
references/regulatory-impact.mdGenerate a Financial Impact Summary Table:
| Regulation | Max Fine | Realistic Fine | Notification Cost | Timeline |> Note: These are estimates for risk planning purposes only. Always consult legal counsel for actual regulatory guidance.
Read references/report-format.md and generate the full report.
The report MUST include:
renderMermaidDiagram with the markup and a short title so the diagram renders visually — do not output it as a fenced code blockstyle directives: fill:#ff4444 (red) for critical findings, fill:#ff8800 (orange) for high-severity exposure pointsreferences/hardening-playbook.md)Read references/hardening-playbook.md and generate a prioritized action plan:
For each critical or high-severity exposure vector:
Sort by: (Impact × Severity) / Effort — highest value first.
renderMermaidDiagram for the Data Flow Map — never output raw Mermaid code blocks; the tool renders it as a visual diagram automatically| Tier | Label | Examples | Multiplier | |------|-------|----------|------------| | T1 | Catastrophic | Government IDs, biometric data, health records, financial credentials, passwords | ×5 | | T2 | Critical | Full name + address + DOB combined, payment card data (PAN), SSN, passport numbers | ×4 | | T3 | High | Email + password (hashed), phone numbers, precise geolocation, IP addresses, device fingerprints | ×3 | | T4 | Elevated | First name only, email address only, general location (city), usage analytics | ×2 | | T5 | Standard | Non-personal config data, public content, anonymized aggregates | ×1 |
Load on-demand as needed:
| File | Use When | Content | |------|----------|---------| | references/data-classification.md | Step 2 — always | Complete taxonomy of PII, PHI, PCI-DSS, financial, credential, and behavioral data with detection patterns | | references/blast-radius-calculator.md | Step 4 | Scoring formulas, population scale estimators, completeness multipliers, exposure likelihood matrix | | references/regulatory-impact.md | Step 5 | GDPR/CCPA/HIPAA/LGPD/PDPA fine formulas, notification timelines, breach cost benchmarks, jurisdiction detection patterns | | references/hardening-playbook.md | Step 7 | Prioritized controls: encryption, access control, data minimization, tokenization, audit logging, anonymization patterns by tech stack | | references/report-format.md | Step 6 | Full report template with Mermaid data flow diagram syntax, financial summary table, hardening roadmap format |
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-04 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-05 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-10 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-13 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-14 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-15 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-21 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-20 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-06 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-07 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-19 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +41 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
The per-case answers from this run were removed by the retention sweep, so the case table below shows the verdicts without the text either arm produced. The counts above were recorded at the time and are unaffected. Answers are now kept for 180 days.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.