CC performing-nist-csf-maturity-assessment
Conduct a NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 maturity assessment across the six core Functions (Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, Recover), scoring organizational posture against the four Implementation Tiers (Partial, Risk-Informed, Repeatable, Adaptive) and producing an improvement roadmap. Use when benchmarking an organization's cybersecurity program maturity or preparing a CSF-based gap analysis and remediation plan.
Conduct a NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 maturity assessment across the six core Functions (Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, Recover)…
As a process C 58/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, failures and branches
How to improve
- 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 · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 8. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "domain" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "subdomain" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "nist_csf" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "mitre_attack"
Process rating: all ten parameters 58/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 3 mutating operations with no state check
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 64 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1293 tokens
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)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +4No input/output examples
- -43 reference files, but SKILL.md never points to them: the model will not open them
- -32 of 2 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 438: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 17 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 64 items
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 71.