SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

BC nist-800-53

NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 compliance advisor — all 20 control families (AC, AT, AU, CA, CM, CP, IA, IR, MA, MP, PE, PL, PM, PS, PT, RA, SA, SC, SI, SR), Low/Moderate/High baseline selection, FIPS 199/200 system categorization, control tailoring and overlays, privacy controls (PT family), supply chain risk management (SR family), assessment procedures (SP 800-53A), OSCAL, RMF integration (SP 800-37), and mapping to FedRAMP, FISMA, CMMC 2.0, and ISO 27001. Use for any federal system security controls, FISMA compliance, RMF step guidance, control narrative writing, or baseline tailoring question.

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills Agent Skills author: lawve-ai 6 files body ≈ 3 096 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 2 h ago

NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 compliance advisor — all 20 control families (AC, AT, AU, CA, CM, CP, IA, IR, MA, MP, PE, PL, PM, PS, PT, RA, SA, SC, SI, SR)…

As a process C 54/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: when it triggers, inputs and preconditions, failures and branches

ProcedureSecuritytype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
B
93/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
93
Quality 40%
92
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
54/100
Has gaps
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Failures and branches w 10
0
When it triggers w 12
20
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
    • A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.

    Guard findings · 7

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Medium and low: 7
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security references/assessment-rmf.md:199
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      - Annual penetration test (conducted by 3PAO)
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security references/assessment-rmf.md:219
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      | Penetration testing | Annual (Moderate+) | Annual (3PAO) |
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security references/assessment-rmf.md:346
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      | SP 800-115 | Security Testing | Penetration testing methodology |
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security references/baselines-tailoring.md:60
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      - Penetration testing (CA-8)
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security references/control-families.md:85
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      **Key events to audit (AU-2):** logon/logoff attempts, privilege escalation, account creation/modification/deletion, system configuration changes, access to sensitive data, use of admin functions.
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security references/control-families.md:101
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      | CA-8 | — | — | ✓ | Penetration Testing |
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security SKILL.md:200
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (detector / deny-list definition)
      | **Test** | Exercise the control mechanism (scan, penetration test, configuration check) |
      detector

    Files scanned: 6. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    ✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec

    Process rating: all ten parameters 54/100

    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
    • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 30Running it twice. 4 mutating operations with no state check
    • 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (nist-800-53) differs from the folder (nist-800-53-tanaji-hemant-naik)
    • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
    • 85Steps. 16 steps, 1 vague phrases
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3096 tokens
    • 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
    • low 11 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill

    Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.

    Quality signals

    • +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 595: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 20 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 16 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (3 of 3)
    • +1License stated

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 92.