SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

BC soc2

Expert SOC 2 compliance assistant covering all five Trust Services Criteria (Security/CC, Availability/A, Confidentiality/C, Processing Integrity/PI, Privacy/P). Use this skill whenever a user mentions SOC 2, Trust Services Criteria, SOC 2 Type 1 or Type 2, audit readiness, compliance gaps, control documentation, evidence collection, vendor risk questionnaires, or anything related to AICPA service organization controls. Trigger even for adjacent topics like "we need to get audited", "a customer asked for our security report", "writing an information security policy", or "preparing for an audit". Covers gap analysis, policy writing, control documentation, audit evidence preparation, and vendor risk reviews for organizations at any maturity level — from first-time startups to seasoned compliance teams.

lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills Agent Skills author: lawve-ai 7 files body ≈ 2 520 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 84 min ago

Expert SOC 2 compliance assistant covering all five Trust Services Criteria (Security/CC, Availability/A, Confidentiality/C, Processing Integrity/PI…

As a process C 60/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, failures and branches, consistency

ProcedureSecurityData and analyticsWriting and documentstype 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
94/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
94
Quality 40%
94
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
60/100
Has gaps
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Failures and branches w 10
0
Running it twice w 4
30
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 · 6

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Medium and low: 6
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security references/evidence.md:122
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      | Penetration test report + remediation tracking | CC7.1 — testing performed | Pentest report PDF + remediation tickets |
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security references/policies.md:95
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (detector / deny-list definition)
      Severity 1 (Critical): Confirmed breach of customer data, ransomware, complete
      detector
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security references/policies.md:228
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use) (detector / deny-list definition)
      - Scanning frequency (e.g., weekly automated + quarterly penetration test)
      detector
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security references/policies.md:235
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      - Penetration testing requirement (annual minimum)
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security references/policies.md:236
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      - Responsible disclosure / bug bounty program (optional)
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security references/vendor.md:142
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      23. How frequently do you perform penetration testing? Who performs it (internal or third-party)?

    Files scanned: 7. 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 60/100

    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
    • 30Running it twice. 2 mutating operations with no state check
    • 40Consistency. Frontmatter name (soc2) differs from the folder (soc2-tanaji-hemant-naik)
    • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
    • 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
    • 85Steps. 57 steps, 2 vague phrases
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2520 tokens
    • 100Progress reporting. Reports progress

    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

    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +3Description length 811: 120–800 characters recommended
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +5Description quotes 4 example trigger phrases
    • +4Structure: 23 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 57 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Has examples (3 code blocks)
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (4 of 4)
    • +1License stated

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 94.