regulatory-templates
3-gate regulatory template orchestrator - manages setup, Gate 1 (analysis), Gate 2 (validation), Gate 3 (generation) for BACEN/RFB compliance.
$ 설치
git clone https://github.com/LerianStudio/ring /tmp/ring && cp -r /tmp/ring/finops-team/skills/regulatory-templates ~/.claude/skills/ring// tip: Run this command in your terminal to install the skill
name: regulatory-templates description: | 3-gate regulatory template orchestrator - manages setup, Gate 1 (analysis), Gate 2 (validation), Gate 3 (generation) for BACEN/RFB compliance.
trigger: |
- Creating BACEN CADOCs (4010, 4016, 4111)
- Mapping e-Financeira, DIMP, APIX templates
- Full automation from analysis to template creation
skip_when: |
- Non-Brazilian regulations → not applicable
- Analysis-only without template → use finops-analyzer directly
- Template already exists, just needs updates → modify directly
sequence: before: [regulatory-templates-setup]
Regulatory Templates - Orchestrator
Overview
This skill orchestrates the regulatory template creation workflow through modular sub-skills, managing a 3-gate sequential validation process with dynamic context passing between gates.
Architecture: Modular design with dedicated sub-skills for each phase:
regulatory-templates-setup- Initial configuration and selectionregulatory-templates-gate1- Regulatory compliance analysis and field mappingregulatory-templates-gate2- Technical validation of mappingsregulatory-templates-gate3- Template file generation (.tpl)
Template Specifications: All template specifications are dynamically loaded within gates from centralized configurations. Templates are organized by regulatory authority with cascading selection:
BACEN (Banco Central):
- CADOC: 4010 (Cadastro), 4016 (Crédito), 4111 (Câmbio)
- APIX: 001 (Dados Cadastrais), 002 (Contas e Transações)
RFB (Receita Federal):
- e-Financeira: evtCadDeclarante, evtAberturaeFinanceira, evtFechamentoeFinanceira, evtMovOpFin, evtMovPP, evtMovOpFinAnual
- DIMP: v10 (Movimentação Patrimonial)
REQUIRED AGENTS: The sub-skills dispatch specialized agents:
finops-analyzer- For Gates 1-2 and Discussion (regulatory analysis and validation)finops-automation- For Gate 3 (template file generation)
Foundational Principle
Brazilian regulatory compliance (BACEN, RFB) has zero margin for error.
This isn't hyperbole:
- BACEN penalties for incorrect submissions: R$10,000 - R$500,000 + license sanctions
- RFB penalties for e-Financeira errors: Criminal liability for false declarations
- Template errors are discovered during audits, often months after submission
- "We'll fix it later" is impossible - submissions are final
This workflow exists because:
- Human confidence without validation = optimism bias (proven by TDD research)
- "Mostly correct" regulatory submissions = rejected submissions + penalties
- Shortcuts under pressure = exactly when errors are most likely
- Each gate prevents specific failure modes discovered in production
The 3-gate architecture is not bureaucracy - it's risk management.
Every section that seems "rigid" or "redundant" exists because someone, somewhere, cut that corner and caused a regulatory incident.
Follow this workflow exactly. Your professional reputation depends on it.
When to Use
Use this skill when:
- User requests mapping and creation of Brazilian regulatory templates
- BACEN CADOCs (4010, 4016, 4111), e-Financeira, DIMP, APIX
- Full automation from analysis to template creation
Symptoms triggering this skill:
- "Create CADOC 4010 template"
- "Map e-Financeira to Midaz and set up in Reporter"
- "Automate DIMP template creation"
When NOT to use:
- Non-Brazilian regulations
- Analysis-only without template creation
- Templates already exist and just need updates
NO EXCEPTIONS - Read This First
This workflow has ZERO exceptions. Brazilian regulatory compliance (BACEN, RFB) has zero margin for error.
Common Pressures You Must Resist
| Pressure | Your Thought | Reality |
|---|---|---|
| Deadline | "Skip Gate 2, we're confident" | Gate 1 analysis ≠ Gate 2 validation. Confidence without verification = optimism bias |
| Authority | "Manager says skip it" | Manager authority doesn't override regulatory requirements. Workflow protects both of you |
| Fatigue | "Manual creation is faster" | Fatigue makes errors MORE likely. Automation doesn't get tired |
| Economic | "Optional fields have no fines" | Template is reusable. Skipping fields = technical debt + future rework |
| Sunk Cost | "Reuse existing template" | 70% overlap = 30% different. Regulatory work doesn't tolerate "mostly correct" |
| Pragmatism | "Setup is ceremony" | Setup initializes context. Skipping = silent assumptions |
| Efficiency | "Fix critical only" | Gate 2 PASS criteria: ALL uncertainties resolved, not just critical |
Emergency Scenarios
"Production is down, need template NOW" → Production issues don't override regulatory compliance. Fix production differently.
"CEO directive to ship immediately" → CEO authority doesn't override BACEN requirements. Escalate risk in writing.
"Client contract requires delivery today" → Contract penalties < regulatory penalties. Renegotiate delivery, don't skip validation.
"Tool/agent is unavailable" → Wait for tools or escalate. Manual workarounds bypass validation layers.
The Bottom Line
Shortcuts in regulatory templates = career-ending mistakes.
BACEN and RFB submissions are final. You cannot "patch next sprint." Every gate exists because regulatory compliance has zero tolerance for "mostly correct."
If you're tempted to skip ANY part of this workflow, stop and ask yourself: Am I willing to stake my professional reputation on this shortcut?
Rationalization Table - Know the Excuses
Every rationalization below has been used to justify skipping workflow steps. ALL are invalid.
| Excuse | Why It's Wrong | Correct Response |
|---|---|---|
| "Gate 2 is redundant when Gate 1 is complete" | Gate 1 = analysis, Gate 2 = validation. Different purposes. Validation catches analysis errors | Run Gate 2 completely |
| "Manual creation is pragmatic" | Manual bypasses validation layer. Gate 3 agent validates against Gate 2 report | Use automation agent |
| "Optional fields don't affect compliance" | Overall confidence includes all fields. Skipping 36% fails PASS criteria | Map all fields |
| "70% overlap means we can copy" | 30% difference contains critical regulatory fields. Similarity ≠ simplicity | Run full workflow |
| "Setup is bureaucratic ceremony" | Setup initializes context for Gates 1-3. Skipping creates silent assumptions | Run setup completely |
| "Fix critical issues only" | Gate 2 PASS: ALL uncertainties resolved. Medium/low issues cascade to mandatory failures | Resolve all uncertainties |
| "We're experienced, simplified workflow" | Experience doesn't exempt you from validation. Regulatory work requires process | Follow full workflow |
| "Following spirit not letter" | Regulatory compliance requires BOTH. Skipping steps violates spirit AND letter | Process IS the spirit |
| "Being pragmatic vs dogmatic" | Process exists because pragmatism failed. Brazilian regulatory penalties are severe | Rigor is pragmatism |
| "Tool is too rigid for real-world" | Rigidity prevents errors. Real-world includes regulatory audits and penalties | Rigidity is protection |
If You Find Yourself Making These Excuses
STOP. You are rationalizing.
The workflow exists specifically to prevent these exact thoughts from leading to errors. If the workflow seems "too rigid," that's evidence it's working - preventing you from shortcuts that seem reasonable but create risk.
Workflow Overview
Flow: Setup → Gate 1 → Gate 2 → Gate 3 → Template Created ✅
| Phase | Sub-skill | Purpose | Agent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Setup | regulatory-templates-setup | Template selection, context init | — |
| Gate 1 | regulatory-templates-gate1 | Regulatory analysis, field mapping | finops-analyzer (opus) |
| Gate 2 | regulatory-templates-gate2 | Validate mappings, test transformations | finops-analyzer (opus) |
| Gate 3 | regulatory-templates-gate3 | Generate .tpl template file | finops-automation (sonnet) |
Orchestration Process
Step 1: Initialize TodoWrite with 5 tasks (setup, gate1, gate2, gate3, verify)
Step 2-5: Execute each sub-skill using Skill tool:
| Step | Skill | On PASS | On FAIL |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | regulatory-templates-setup | Store context → Gate 1 | Fix selection issues |
| 3 | regulatory-templates-gate1 | Store spec report → Gate 2 | Address critical gaps, retry |
| 4 | regulatory-templates-gate2 | Store finalized report → Gate 3 | Resolve uncertainties, retry |
| 5 | regulatory-templates-gate3 | Template complete | 401=refresh token, 500/503=wait+retry |
Context flows in memory - no intermediate files created
Context Management - Report-Driven Flow
Context accumulates through gates (each adds, never overwrites):
| After | Context Additions |
|---|---|
| Setup | template_selected, template_code, authority, deadline |
| Gate 1 | specification_report (template_info, fields, transformations, validations, structure) |
| Gate 2 | finalized_report (validated, uncertainties_resolved, all_fields_mapped, ready_for_implementation) |
| Gate 3 | gate3 (template_file, filename, path, ready_for_use, report_compliance: 100%) |
Template Specifications Management
- Gates load specs dynamically from centralized config
- Add new templates by adding specifications only (no new skills)
- Pattern:
loadTemplateSpecifications(templateName)for field mappings, validation rules, format specs
State Tracking
Output after EACH sub-skill: SKILL: regulatory-templates | PHASE: {phase} | TEMPLATE: {template} | GATES: {n}/3 | CURRENT: {action} | NEXT: {next} | BLOCKERS: {blockers}
Error Handling
| Error | Action |
|---|---|
| Gate failure (retriable) | Fix issues → retry gate |
| Gate failure (non-retriable) | Escalate to user |
| Gate 3: 401 | Refresh token → retry |
| Gate 3: 500/503 | Wait 2 min → retry |
Coordination Rules
- Sequential execution (1→2→3)
- Context accumulates (never overwrites)
- Failure stops progress
- State tracking after each sub-skill
- TodoWrite updates immediately
- NO intermediate files (memory only)
- SINGLE output file (.tpl in Gate 3)
Red Flags - STOP Immediately
If you catch yourself thinking ANY of these, STOP and re-read the NO EXCEPTIONS section:
Skip Patterns
- "Skip Gate X" (any variation)
- "Run Gates out of order"
- "Parallel gates for speed"
- "Simplified workflow for experienced teams"
- "Emergency override protocol"
Manual Workarounds
- "Create template manually"
- "Copy existing template"
- "Manual validation is sufficient"
- "I'll verify it myself"
Partial Compliance
- "Fix critical only"
- "Map mandatory fields only"
- "Skip setup, we already know"
- "Lower pass threshold"
Justification Language
- "Being pragmatic"
- "Following spirit not letter"
- "Real-world flexibility"
- "Process over outcome"
- "Dogmatic adherence"
- "We're confident"
- "Manager approved"
If You See These Red Flags
- Acknowledge the rationalization ("I'm trying to skip Gate 2")
- Read the NO EXCEPTIONS section (understand why it's required)
- Follow the workflow completely (no modifications)
- Document the pressure (for future skill improvement)
The workflow is non-negotiable. Regulatory compliance doesn't have "reasonable exceptions."
Quick Reference
| Sub-skill | Purpose | Input | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| regulatory-templates-setup | Initial configuration | User selections | Base context |
| regulatory-templates-gate1 | Regulatory analysis | Base context | Field mappings, spec report |
| regulatory-templates-gate2 | Technical validation | Context + Gate 1 | Validated mappings, rules |
| regulatory-templates-gate3 | Template creation | Context + Gates 1-2 | .tpl file |
Checklist
Before: Sub-skills exist, agents available, template selected, URLs configured After each gate: Result captured, context updated, TodoWrite updated, state tracked After completion: Template created, verified, user notified
Repository
