GRC & Compliance — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited GRC & Compliance (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Enable Claude to operate as a governance, risk, and compliance partner: quantify and prioritize risk, map controls across the major frameworks, run gap analyses, prepare audit evidence, and draft clear, tailored security policies. Claude turns scattered control requirements into a single cross-framework view so one piece of evidence can satisfy many obligations.
Advisory scope: This skill produces risk analysis, control mappings, and policy drafts to support a security/compliance program. It is decision-support, not legal advice or a certification. A qualified auditor or counsel should validate before formal attestation.
This skill activates when the user asks about:
pip install pyyamlNo external tools required — this skill is primarily analytical and document-generation focused. Claude reads existing policies, configs, and evidence directly.
When asked to assess risk, run a structured, repeatable method:
Use scripts/risk_register.py to score and rank a YAML/CSV risk list and emit a heat-map summary.
Maintain one control statement mapped to many frameworks so evidence is reused, not duplicated. Anchor on NIST CSF 2.0 functions (GOVERN, IDENTIFY, PROTECT, DETECT, RESPOND, RECOVER) and crosswalk outward:
| Need | Framework | Anchor |
|---|---|---|
| Program governance | NIST CSF 2.0 | GV / ID / PR / DE / RS / RC |
| Certifiable ISMS | ISO/IEC 27001:2022 | Annex A (93 controls, 4 themes) |
| Service-org attestation | SOC 2 | Trust Services Criteria (CC1–CC9, A/C/PI/P) |
| Federal / detailed controls | NIST SP 800-53 Rev.5 | 20 control families |
| Cardholder data | PCI DSS 4.0 | 12 requirements |
| Prioritized baseline | CIS Controls v8 | 18 controls / IG1–IG3 |
Use scripts/control_mapper.py to crosswalk a control or to show, for a chosen framework, which related-framework requirements a single control satisfies.
When asked for a gap analysis:
Draft tailored, plain-language policy documents with a consistent structure (Purpose, Scope, Policy Statements, Roles & Responsibilities, Enforcement, Exceptions, Review cadence, Mapped controls). Common set: Information Security Policy, Access Control, Acceptable Use, Data Classification & Handling, Incident Response, Business Continuity/DR, Change Management, Vendor/Third-Party Risk, Cryptography, Secure SDLC, and an AI Use policy. Map each policy back to the controls it satisfies.
Tier vendors by data access and criticality; drive assessment via SIG/CAIQ-style questionnaires or review of the vendor's SOC 2 / ISO cert; track findings, residual risk, and re-assessment cadence in the register.
Risk register row:
ID | Risk | Asset | Threat | Likelihood(1-5) | Impact(1-5) | Inherent | Controls | Residual | Treatment | Owner | Due
R-001 | Ransomware encrypts file servers | File svc | Crime group | 4 | 5 | 20 (Critical) | Backups, EDR, MFA | 8 (Medium) | Mitigate | IT Ops | 2026-09-30Gap analysis / SoA:
# [Framework] Gap Analysis — [Org]
Date: [Date] | Scope: [...] | Overall coverage: 72%
## By Domain
| Domain | Implemented | Partial | Not Impl | N/A | Coverage |
| Access Control | 8 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 80% |
## Gaps & Remediation
| Control | Status | Gap | Action | Owner | Effort | Target |Compliance posture (leadership):
# Compliance Posture — [Period]
Overall: [score] | Trend: [▲/▼] | Frameworks: [...]
Top risks: [3] | Overdue remediations: [n] | Upcoming audits: [...]risk_register.py# Score & rank a risk list (YAML or CSV), emit ranked register + heat-map summary
python scripts/risk_register.py --input risks.yaml --output risk_register.json
# Quantitative ALE view where SLE/ARO provided
python scripts/risk_register.py --input risks.csv --quant --output register.jsoncontrol_mapper.py# Crosswalk a control concept across frameworks
python scripts/control_mapper.py --control "access control" --frameworks all
# Show NIST CSF 2.0 -> ISO 27001 / SOC 2 mapping for a function
python scripts/control_mapper.py --csf PR.AA --output crosswalk.json| Next Step | Condition | Target Skill |
|---|---|---|
| Technical validation of a control | Need to prove a control works | → Skill 02 / 09 / 10 |
| Cloud compliance scanning | Cloud controls in scope | → Skill 10 |
| Detection coverage evidence | DE function controls | → Skill 12 / 15 |
| IR plan testing evidence | RESPOND/RECOVER controls | → Skill 07 |
| AI governance controls | AI systems in scope | → Skill 16 |
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.